St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023

City of St. Helena
Special City Council Meeting
Monday, June 26, 2023 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena

PLEASE NOTE: Any person who wishes to speak regarding an item on the agenda or make a comment under the "Oral Communication" portion of the agenda may do so, but please observe the time limit of four minutes.

The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on Comcast Channel 28 and on the City’s website.

Public comment for City Council meetings will be accepted via email to [email protected]. All public comments must be received three hours prior to the meeting. All other public comments received after the deadline will be attached to the item the next business day or soon thereafter. Public comments will not be read out loud but will be publicly available and attached to the on-line City Council agenda.

Simultaneous Spanish interpretation services during meetings can be scheduled upon request.

To ensure interpreters are available, requests must be made at least 72 hours in advance by calling the Office of the City Clerk at (707) 968-2640 or emailing [email protected].

The schedule of upcoming meetings and published meeting agendas can be found on the City of St. Helena website at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/.

Servicios de interpretación en español durante la reunión pueden ser solicitados por el público.

Para asegurar que los intérpretes estén disponibles, los servicios tienen que ser solicitados al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión llamando a la oficina de la Secretaria de la Ciudad al (707) 968-2640 o por correo electrónico a [email protected] .

El horario de las reuniones publicadas y próximas puede ser localizado en el sitio de web de la Ciudad en https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/ .

Page

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall:, City Council Members: Anna Chouteau, Lester Hardy, Billy Summers

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

5. PUBLIC COMMENT:

Under California law, public comments at special meetings are limited to subjects on the agenda only. Therefore public comment will take place during consideration of the item. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes.

6. NEW BUSINESS:

6.1. Request by Ben and Kelly Van Zutphen to subdivide a 16.9-acre parcel to establish 51 single-family residential lots, 11 of which are proposed with accessory dwelling units on approximately 13.4 acres. A 3.13-acre parcel will be established to accommodate a 25-unit multi-family housing development. Two additional remnant parcels (Parcel A; 0.06 acres) and (Parcel B; 0.04 acres) will remain with no plans for future development.

A total of 87 units are intended to be built. The currently vacant project site is located north of Hunt Avenue and east of the future extension of Adams Street within the Medium Density Residential (MR) Zoning and (MDR) General Plan districts.

CEQA Determination: Environmental Impact Report
Prepared By: Eric Norris, Planning Consultant
Recommendation:

After considering the project, staff report, supporting documents, technical studies and all testimony, written and spoken, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution certifying the Final EIR, and approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and

2. Adopt the attached Resolution approving the requested Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040 for the Hunter Subdivision project.

Staff Report - Pdf
Presentation
Public Comment.Henry Gundling
Public Comment.Joyce Armington
Public Comment.Kristi Nelson Pennington
Public Comment.Elizabeth Green.

Public Comment.Elizabeth Green
StHelena-TA-06082023-060823
St Helena Citizens for Sustainable Future petitions
Public Comment.Pat Dell
Public Comment.Pat Dell2
Public Comment.Mary Stephenson
Public Comment.Angela Zivkovic, PhD
Public Comment.Sandra Lowry
Public Comment. Joshua Devore DPF Law
Public Comment.Elizabeth Green 3
Public Comment.Elizabeth Green 4 (attachment comment 3) Public Comment.Gayle Davies
Public Comment.Grace Kistner
Public Comment.N O'Neill
Public Comment. Holland & Knight LLP 1
Public Comment. Holland & Knight LLP 2
Public Comment.Bill Thompson
Public Comment.Daniel Hale
Public Comment.Greg Reynolds
Public Comment.Joe McGrath
5 - 950

Public Comment.Sandra Archibald
Public Comment.Ann Nevero
Public Comment. Holland & Knight LLP 3

6.2. Attachments 14a
Att 14a Hunter Draft EIR
951 - 1588

6.3. Attachment 14b
Att 14b APP A_NOP and Comments Received
1589 - 1868

6.4. Attachments 14c-d
Att 14c APP B_LESA Model
Att 14d APP C_CalEEMod Results
1869 - 2110

6.5. Attachment 14e
Att 14e APP D_Biological Resources Reports
2111 - 2175

6.6. Attachment f-g
Att 14f APP E_ Confidential Hunter Cultural XPI_Ph2
Report_5.15.2020_App B, C, D
Att 14g APP F_Geotechnical Engineering Report
2177 - 2333

6.7. Attachment 14h
Att 14h APP G_Phase I ESA
2335 - 2562

6.8. Attachment i-k
Att 14i APP H_Hydrology Report
Att 14j APP I_Noise Model Outputs
Att 14k APP J_Water Neutral Report
2563 - 2747

6.9. Attachment l
Att 14l APP K_HunterSubdivision_TIS_04.06.21a_revNov2022 2749 - 3251

6.10. Attachment 15
Att 15 Final EIR for the Hunter Subdivision Project 1-2023 3253 - 4066

6.11. Attachment 16
Att 16 Hunter Subdivision Traffic Analysis Summary 10-10-22 4067 - 4069

7. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2023, at 6:00 p.m.

This agenda was posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, and at Vintage Hall, 465 Main Street, St. Helena, California on June 9, 2023.

Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s Office (707) 967-2792. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by

Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, California, during normal business hours and by appointment. In addition, such writings or documents will be made available on the City’s web site at https://sthelena.civicweb.net and will be available for public review at the respective meeting.

Report to the City Council
Special City Council - 26 Jun 2023
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS:

Subject: Request by Ben and Kelly Van Zutphen to subdivide a 16.9- acre parcel to establish 51 single-family residential lots, 11 of which are proposed with accessory dwelling units on
approximately 13.4 acres. A 3.13-acre parcel will be
established to accommodate a 25-unit multi-family housing development. Two additional remnant parcels (Parcel A; 0.06 acres) and (Parcel B; 0.04 acres) will remain with no plans for future development. A total of 87 units are intended to be built.

The currently vacant project site is located north of Hunt Avenue and east of the future extension of Adams Street within the Medium Density Residential (MR) Zoning and (MDR) General Plan districts.

CEQA
Determination:

Environmental Impact Report
Prepared By: Eric Norris, Planning Consultant
Reviewed By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Approved By: Anil Comelo, City Manager

BACKGROUND

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On February 7, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of St Helena held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Hunter project’s Environmental Impact Report and the proposed Tentative Map. At the conclusion of the February 7 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 (member Rothfeld was absent) to 1) approve Planning Commission Resolution PC2023-001, recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and 2) approve Planning Commission Resolution PC2023- 002, recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Map TM2022-001.

Agenda Item #6.1.

BACKGROUND
A detailed discussion of the project’s background is provided in the May 1, 2023, City Council staff report (included in Attachment 8 to this report). Topics addressed in the May 1 report include:
• 1993 General Plan
• Zoning History

PROJECT PROCESSING
The proposed project being considered by the City Council at this time is a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide an approximately 17-acre parcel of land in the eastern area of the city, east of the existing terminus of Adams Street. The proposed subdivision would create lots for 51 single family homes, and a separate parcel (lot 52) on which multi-family attached housing units would be built. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map is included as Attachment 9 to this report.

Additional information on the proposed project is included in the May 1, 2023, City Council staff report.

ANALYSIS
A complete, detailed analysis of the proposed project is provided in the May 1, 2023, City Council staff report. Topics addressed in the Analysis include:
• Required findings for approval of a Tentative Map
• Required findings to deny a “housing development project” per state law • Consistency with the 1993 General Plan
• Consistency with the Zoning Code
• Design of the subdivision for passive or natural heating or cooling.

CEQA
A comprehensive draft environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review from September-November 2021. A final EIR, which includes all of the comments received during the public review period and responses to the comments, has been prepared.

Additional information on the Draft and Final EIR are included in the May 1, 2023, City Council staff report. Topics in the May 1 staff report include:
• Topics addressed in the Draft EIR
• Alternatives Considered
• Potentially Significant Impacts
• Significant and Unavoidable Impact: Vehicle Miles Traveled • Statement of Overriding Considerations
• Public and Agency Comments on the Draft EIR
• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Agenda Item #6.1.

DISCUSSION

PROJECT ISSUES
The May 1, 2023, City Council staff report provides a detailed discussion of a wide variety of issues related to the project, including:
• Water Neutrality
• Trail/Open Space
• Levee/Flooding
• Parking
• Aesthetics
• Sewer Capacity
• “High Density” Nature of the Project
• Traffic/Congestion
• Intersection Design Adams Street/Starr Avenue and Starr Avenue/Street A • Vacation of City Property
Please see the May 1 staff report (attachment 7 to this report) for a discussion of these issues.

ADDITIONAL ISSUES FROM THE MAY 1, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING The following are issues raised at the May 1 City Council meeting, either in public comments or the Council’s discussion. Staff’s responses are provided.

1. Emergency Evacuation—Many commentors expressed concern that the addition of new homes in the area would hinder the evacuation of persons in the area (and particularly in the Vineyard Valley mobilehome community) during an emergency.

Staff’s Response: This issue has been raised many times in public comments on the Draft EIR and the proposed project. Staff understands the concerns expressed by residents. However, staff’s conclusion, based on consultation with the St Helena Police and Fire departments, is that the addition of new homes will not negatively affect the ability of the area to evacuate in time of emergency.

For more information, please see Final EIR Master Response #1, “Emergency Evacuation,” included as Attachment 1 to this report.

2. Levee Safety—Many commentors expressed concern about the design and maintenance of the adjacent levee. Some commentors have suggested that the levee’s integrity is being compromised by the presence of gopher burrows, which they assert results from what they believe is an inadequate program of inspection and maintenance.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Staff’s Response: Detailed responses to these and other comments related to the levee and its design and maintenance are included in Attachment 3, Final EIR Master Response #3, “Napa River Flood Protection/Levee.”
Records of levee inspections verifying that the levee has been inspected for rodent burrows are available on the City’s web site:
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/flood-control-and-river-restorationproject

3. Affordable Housing/Relationship of the Project to Meeting RHNA Allocations— Several commentors expressed concern that housing in the proposed project “will not be affordable.”
Staff’s Response: As required by the St Helena Municipal Code, 20 percent of the homes in the project will be affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households. There will be no restrictions on the price of the remaining units, but the City’s requirement for affordability will apply to 20 percent of the housing units.

The proposed project is required to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing requirements (Chapter 17.146 of the St Helena Municipal Code) however it is not required that the inclusionary housing agreement be completed as part of the Tentative Map; a detailed Affordable Housing Agreement spelling out the exact number of units in each income category and where they will be located must be approved by the City Council before a Final Map can be approved (proposed condition of approval #28).

By providing both market-rate and affordable units, the proposed Hunter Project represents about one-third of the 256 housing units allocated to the City in the current 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). If the Hunter project is not approved, another location (or locations) would need to be located to build these units.

Staff suggests that the Hunter site, which has been proposed for residential development for at least 30 years in the General Plan, is an appropriate location on which to help the City meet its mandated housing needs.

4. Letters from Attorneys—The City received two letters from a law firm (DP&F) representing opponents of the proposed project: “RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040,” April 30, 2023; and “RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Environmental Impact Report. 2022-001, File #PL10-040,” April 30, 2023. The letters raise a number of issues related to the environmental impact report and the recommended approval of the proposed tentative map. The letters are provided as Attachment 4 to this staff report.

Staff’s Response: Detailed responses to the DP&F letters, prepared by the City Attorney’s office, are provided as Attachment 5 to this staff report.

Agenda Item #6.1.

5. Spanish Language Outreach—Some commenters and City Council members expressed concern that there was no specific Spanish-language outreach associated with the Hunter project. They question whether Spanish-speaking households should have been provided with information in their native language.

Staff’s Response: The City currently does not have a policy requiring that public notices for development projects be provided in any language other than English. This is a policy which the City Council may wish to discuss for future projects. All noticing and materials for the Hunter project comply with current City requirements.

6. Status of the Onsite Well—Several commentors, including attorneys representing project opponents and Water Audit California, have suggested that the existing onsite well is not available to be used as proposed to irrigate outdoor landscaping in the proposed project. (The applicant has proposed using the well for all outdoor needs to reduce the need for City-supplied potable water.) Correspondence from project opponents and Water Audit California assert that the well falls into a category of “abandoned” under state law and, therefore, a new permit would need to be obtained (replacing the well’s existing 1976 permit). The commentors then assert that the new permit would be subject to severe limitations on water extraction which would be substantially lower than the amount of water use proposed by the applicant.

Staff’s Response: Based on a review of the correspondence and relevant state law, staff concludes that the statutes referred to (by Water Audit California in particular) are intended to address wells which have been entirely abandoned and which need to be properly dismantled and capped to prevent accidents. The well in question, although not currently connected to electrical service, on the other hand, is not abandoned, is fully operational, and was verified in 2021 to be able to be pumped at levels exceeding the proposed usage. The limitations which the commentors suggest apply to the well do not, in fact, apply and will not limit use of the well.

7. Statement of Overriding Considerations—Several City Council members discussed the proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), which must be adopted due to the presence of one unavoidable adverse impact of the proposed project (too many Vehicle Miles Traveled, or “VMT”). The SOC, in simple terms, is a statement of the reasons why the proposed project’s benefits outweigh the adverse impact that would result. Councilmembers asked what would happen if the SOC were not adopted, and whether the project’s benefits in fact outweigh its impact on VMT.

Staff’s Response: Detailed information on the Statement of Overriding Considerations is provided in the May 1 City Council staff report; the complete text of the SOC is included in the CEQA Resolution attached to this staff report (Attachment 6). Staff’s recommendation is that the impact at hand—that the number of miles that will be driven by residents of the proposed project exceeds the standard at issue—is outweighed by the benefits of providing more housing in St Helena and in particular providing 20 percent of units at prices/rents affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households. As discussed earlier in this report, building housing at this site would meet Agenda Item #6.1.

approximately one-third of the City’s current Regional Housing Needs Allocation, an important goal of the City as it seeks to maintain conformance with state housing mandates.

If the SOC is not adopted, project approval could not proceed, the tentative map would not be approved, and development of housing at the project site would not occur. This could in turn lead to a number of adverse outcomes, including potential legal challenge of the Council’s decision, issues with the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (which enforces compliance with state housing law), and increase the risk that the City would receive future “builder’s remedy” projects (under the Housing Accountability Act, cities that do not have a housing element in substantial compliance with state law cannot deny certain housing projects, even if they are not in compliance with the City’s zoning or general plan). For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

8. Future Applications—Several Councilmembers asked about future applications which will need to be approved before the project can be developed, and whether additional information is available about these applications.

Staff’s Response: The following applications will need to be approved if the tentative map is approved:
• Affordable Housing Agreement—Must be approved by the City Council at a public meeting prior to approval of the Final Map
• Final Map/Subdivision Improvement Agreement (CC)—Must be approved by the City Council before the Final Map is recorded
• Conditional Use Permit for Multi-Family (PC)—Must be approved by the Planning Commission before the multi-family homes can be built
• Design Review (PC)—Must be approved by the Planning Commission before the single family and multi-family homes can be built
There are also numerous conditions of approval as noted in the resolution which will need to be satisfied before the final map can be approved and recorded and building permits issued.

Staff does not have additional information at this time on the details of any of these applications. All of the applications will require a public hearing or be considered at a public meeting of the approving body (Council or Planning Commission) at which the public will be able to provide written and oral comments.

Agenda Item #6.1.

9. Extension of Adams Street to Silverado Trail—Several commentors have asked why the applicant is not required to either build or contribute to the extension of Adams Street to Silverado Trail.

Staff’s Response: The extension of Adams Street to Silverado Trail is one of two alternatives included in the General Plan to connect downtown to Silverado Trail.

General Plan policy CR1.C states as follows [italics added]:
“CR1.C Evaluate the following new connections to promote increased bicycle, pedestrian, and non-automobile-based transportation, consistent with the requirement for the preparation of a “Special Study” as described in the Circulation Element. Where feasible, preserve existing rights-of-way.
• Starr Avenue extension north to Adams Street
• Consider three options for a connection to Mills Lane: a) Starr Avenue extension to Mills Lane; b) College Avenue extension to Mills Lane; or c) Allison Avenue extension to Mills Lane
• Adams Street from its current eastern terminus to Starr Avenue • Consider two options to connect downtown St. Helena to Silverado Trail: a) Adams Street extension to Silverado Trail; b) Mills Lane extension to Silverado Trail” To date, a special study has not been undertaken and the City Council has not made a choice about the appropriate route to connect downtown to Silverado Trail.

The Hunter project is not required to provide the connection to Silverado for several reasons:

1. The City has not yet decided which route to choose (Adams Street or Mills Lane) to connect downtown to Silverado Trail.

2. The proposed project does not require this roadway to provide acceptable circulation. The project adds very small levels of congestion to a handful of intersections, but these impacts to not rise to the level of requiring a substantial new roadway (and a bridge over the Napa River) to correct.

3. The project will pay development impact fees which can be combined with fees from other projects and other funding sources to construct whichever connection to Silverado Trail is ultimately selected by the City.

The proposed project does include the construction of extensions of Adams Street (partial extension to provide access to northern project entrance) and Starr Avenue, which are included in General Plan policy CR1.C. The project does not preclude the eventual extension of Adams Street, since the alignment of that future roadway is outside of the physical limits of the Hunter project.

10. Water Neutrality (Will Project Make City’s Water Situation Worse?)—Many commentors have expressed concern that the Hunter project will negatively affect the Agenda Item #6.1.

City’s water system by adding demand for City-provided water. These concerns generally include questions about projected water use and the ability of the project to achieve water neutrality.

Staff’s Response: The issue of the City’s Water Neutrality requirements has been considered and is the subject of extensive discussion in prior staff reports, the project’s Draft EIR, and the Final EIR. Please refer to Attachment 2, Master Response #2 in the Final EIR, “St. Helena Water Supply and Water Neutral Policy For Development,” which addresses this issue.

As noted in the discussion of issue #6 above (the status of the onsite well), staff’s conclusion is that the onsite well can be used as proposed to provide water for outdoor uses (mostly irrigating landscaping), providing about half of the water savings needed to fully offset the project’s water use. The project’s conditions of approval require the installation of water-conserving projects elsewhere in St Helena to achieve the rest of the required water savings.

11. Proposed Accessory Dwelling Units—Several commentors asked whether the City would require that the proposed Accessory Dwelling Units (to be built with 11 of the single family homes) are rented to low-income households.

Staff’s Response: The proposed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) will not be counted toward the project’s required affordable housing (see the discussion of issue #3, above).

Because the ADU units will not be part of the required affordable units, and consistent with City practice for other ADUs, the City will not require that these units are rented to low-income households. The use of the ADUs will be up to the owners of the homes with which they are built.

12. Tom Belt Comments: Water Use Projections Are Too Low/Water Use Criteria “Lacks Validation”—This commentor suggests that the project’s projected interior water use is too low, citing a 34.9-gallons-per-capita figure used to calculate total water use.

Staff’s Response: The 34.9-gallons-per-day figure is based on dividing the projected interior water use of 279 gallons per day per single family home by the number of persons (8, based on 2 persons per bedroom in a 4-bedroom home) used in the calculations. Using the City’s average household size of 2.2 persons, the per-capita use is 127 gallons per day.

By comparison, the State of California Department of Water Resources reported in 2021 that, “…current statewide median indoor residential water use is 48 gallons per capita per day, and that a quarter of California households already use less than 42 gallons per capita per day.”
[https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2021/Nov-21/State-Agencies-RecommendIndoor-Residential-Water-UseAgenda Item #6.1.

Standard#:~:text=The%20report%20notes%20that%20the,gallons%20per%20ca pita%20per%20day.]
The calculations used to project future water use are therefore conservative. Projected daily water use per person (using St Helena’s average household size) is approximately three times higher than the statewide average.

13. Tom Belt Comments: Will City Ensure That Water Use Will Not Exceed Projections?—This commentor asked whether the City would ensure that water use does not exceed projections.

Staff’s Response: The City meters water use per household, but to date has not implemented any type of program which would flag homes with excessive water use. As noted above, the projected per-person water use for the project is about three times higher than the statewide average, the likelihood that water use will exceed projections is very low.

14. Tom Belt Comments: In-Lieu Fee to Offset Water Use?—This commentor asked whether an in-lieu fee to offset projected water use is too low and would not achieve enough mitigation. The commentor also asked if an in-lieu fee would be adjusted if water use was higher than projected.

Staff’s Response: The proposed conditions of approval do not allow the payment of an in-lieu fee to offset the project’s water use. Condition of approval #73 requires that the developer build and bring on line one or more projects that would reduce water use in the city or provide additional supply.

As noted in the discussion of issue #12, the water use projections for the project are conservative and not likely to be exceeded. Also, as discussed for issue #13, the City does not monitor household water use, so there is no current process in place to provide for penalties or fees if water use projections are exceeded.

15. Change.Org Petition—In late April, 2023, an online petition in opposition to the Hunter project was posted on the web site Change.org (https://www.change.org/p/savethe-city-of-st-helena-urge-city-council-to-vote-no-on-the-hunter-eir). After reviewing the information in the petition, staff prepared and circulated a press release correcting several factual errors. The press release is included as Attachment 10 to this staff report.

16. Water Audit California Comment Letter—On May 1, 2023 (the date of the previous City Council hearing), Water Audit California delivered a letter Attachment to the City Council and other city officials commenting on and raising concerns about the CEQA process which has been followed for the Hunter project and the adequacy of the analysis of water use and water neutrality. The letter is included as Attachment A letter responding to the Water Audit California letter is provided as Attachment 12.

Agenda Item #6.1.

CITY COUNCIL HEARING 6-26-23
Responses to letters received after publication of this staff report will be attached to the agenda.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Resolution for approval of the proposed tentative map includes recommended conditions of approval which include the following minor changes from the conditions included in the Resolution prepared for the May 1 City Council meeting.

COA #69 is proposed to be deleted. As discussed in the attached memorandum from the City of St Helena Fire Department (Attachment 13 to this report), the proposed emergency vehicle access (EVA) from Street A to the levee road is no longer warranted, based in the availability of access to and from the Hunter subdivision on local streets and the designation of the levee road in 2018 as the evacuation route for residents of the Vineyard Valley mobile home community.

69. EVA: From Street A to levee: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the emergency vehicle access road (EVA) shall be improved to provide an all-weather access road (paved) from Street A up to the existing levee road to the north. The width of the EVA shall be a minimum of 21 feet from face of curb to face of curb within an overall 25 ft. wide dedicated EVA. The EVA shall accommodate emergency vehicles (must provide for turning radii to accommodate fire vehicles as per the Fire Department requirements.) Turning templates shall be provided with the improvement plans during the plan check process to ensure the EVA can accommodate Fire Department apparatus.

COA #88 is proposed to be revised to clarify the storm drain improvements the condition refers to, and that the developer is responsible for installing these improvements:

COA #88: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, all City-required in-tract drainage improvements as shown on the proposed Tentative Map related to storm water for the project shall be installed by the project developer at it’s the developer's expense. Drainage improvements shall be designed and funded by the developer in accordance with the Design Criteria utilizing the rationale method and any applicable adopted City drainage plans.

COA #90 is proposed to be revised to correct a reference to another condition (COA #91):

COA #90: Post-development flows storm water discharge from parcel 009-030-057 shall not exceed the pre-development discharge including the projected build-out, expressed as 30% undeveloped pervious and 70% impervious drainage watershed. Applicant shall prepare an analysis to show compliance with this COA. Refer to COA #90 #91 for additional requirements of the analysis.

Agenda Item #6.1.

COA #91 is proposed to be revised to clarify the use of a Reimbursement Agreement through which the City will reimburse the applicant for offsite drainage improvements:

COA #91: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide to the City an analysis of the capacity and condition of existing drainage facilities downstream of the development (including any detention/retention ponds), including recommendations for offsite drainage improvements, which shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Site grading and drainage improvements shall be shown on the improvement plans. In the unlikely event that the downstream facilities require improvements, the applicant and the City shall enter into a Funding Agreement as a means of reimbursement from whereby the applicant is reimbursed for said improvements by from the City.

COA 124 is proposed to be deleted. As discussed above for COA 69, the proposed emergency vehicle access is no longer needed; this condition is therefore not needed. 124. Access to the levee road is restricted for public use and only granted to emergency vehicles and emergency egress for Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park residents.

Signage prohibiting its use by the public is recommended. Public access will be granted at the discretion of the Authority Having Jurisdiction during emergencies/evacuations.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no direct fiscal impacts to the General Fund resulting from the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map. Future development of the project site could increase the property tax and impact fee revenues, based on the size and value of the future homes that would be built in the subdivision.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
After considering the project, staff report, supporting documents, technical studies and all testimony, written and spoken, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution certifying the Final EIR, and approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and

2. Adopt the attached Resolution approving the requested Tentative Map No. 2022- 001, File #PL10-040 for the Hunter Subdivision project.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 FEIR Master Response 1 Emergency Evacuation
Att 2 FEIR Master Response 2 Water Supply and Water Neutrality Att 3 FEIR Master Response 3 Napa River Flood Protection and Levee Att 4 Letters from DPF April 2023
Att 5 City Attorney Responses to Attorney Letters
Agenda Item #6.1.

Att 6 Hunter FEIR CC Reso for 6-26-23
Att 7 Hunter Subdivision CC Reso for 6-26-23
Att 8 CC Staff Report 5-1-2023
Att 9 Tentative Map 1-24-23
Att 10 Press Release City Response to Online Misinformation About the Hunter Subdivision 5-26-23
Att 11 Water Audit California's Comment to CSHHunter EIR 5-1-23 Att 12 Response to Water Audit California's Comment
Att 13 Hunter EVA Letter 6-6-23
Agenda Item #6.1.

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 4-3
MASTER RESPONSE 1: EMERGENCY EVACUATION
Numerous comments were raised regarding emergency evacuation, specifically for residents of the adjacent Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park (Vineyard Valley). Concerns included the addition of vehicles from the Proposed Project and the potential to hinder evacuation of residents in the area, including in the Vineyard Valley development during an emergency.

Commentors asked whether this impact was considered and expressed concern about potential adverse impacts to public safety.

Roads that would provide emergency access near the Project site include Pope Street, Hunt Avenue, Starr Avenue, Adams Street, and Silverado Trail as well as the existing levee maintenance road that borders the northwest boundary of the Project site and the adjacent City detention basin. The Vineyard Valley development currently has only one access to enter/exit the development from Pope Street. Emergency access is provided via the maintenance road adjacent to the northern boundary.

On August 3, 2021, the St. Helena Police Department in conjunction with the St. Helena Fire Department conducted a practice emergency evacuation drill of Vineyard Valley residents. The emergency simulated a major incident, such as a fire, where the residents of Vineyard Valley would be asked to leave in a moment's notice in their vehicles. Residents evacuated in approximately 25 to 30 minutes. The attached “After Action Report,” dated Sept 20, 2021, provides additional detail on the evacuation drill.

Based on the results of the evacuation drill, the St. Helena Police Department has concluded that any additional traffic from the Proposed Project would not significantly impact the ability of Vineyard Valley residents to safely evacuate the development in the event of an emergency. The Police Department also concluded that the proposed extension of Starr Avenue to Adams Street will help facilitate future evacuations by providing additional roadway capacity and additional routing options for emergency traffic (J.Tharp September 2021)1. If, for some reason, the levee maintenance road is closed residents of Vineyard Valley would exit using the access onto Pope Street.

Another concern with regard to the Proposed Project’s potential impact on emergency evaluation concerned construction activities and their potential to block access to the levee maintenance road in the event of an emergency. Construction equipment would be staged on the Project site and would not be allowed to to park or be stored on or block access to the maintenance road. Access to the maintenance road would be maintained during all construction activities, even during construction of the extension of Adams Street, to ensure adequate emergency access would be available. All construction trucks and equipment would access the site from either Starr Avenue or Adams Street. No construction vehicles would be permitted on the levee maintenance road.

Emergency access and public safety is evaluated in the Draft EIR in Sections 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 3.12, Public Services and Recreation and 3.14, Transportation and 1 City of St. Helena Police Department, After Action Report, Lt. Justin Tharp, September 20, 2021.

Agenda Item #6.1.

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 4-4
Circulation. The St. Helena Fire Department has reviewed the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map and has not identified any issues with the Project’s proposed emergency access.

As discussed in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Napa County, in coordination with other jurisdictions including the City, has prepared a Draft 2020 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, which has not yet been adopted (DEIR p. 3.8-11). The plan covers each of the major natural hazards that pose risks to County infrastructure and residents and includes:
• Focusing resources on the greatest risks and vulnerabilities, • Building partnerships by involving citizens, organizations, and businesses, • Increasing education and awareness of threats and hazards, as well as their risks, • Communicating priorities to state and federal officials, and • Aligning risk reduction with other community objectives.

The potential for the Project to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan is evaluated under Impact 3.8-3 on page 3.8-20 of the Draft EIR. As noted in the discussion, the Project includes three points of access -- the extension of Starr Avenue, Adams Street, and emergency vehicle access via the levee maintenance road-- to facilitate the ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles, including the City and County Fire Department’s apparatus, Project residents, and Vineyard Valley residents. The emergency vehicle access onto the maintenance road would be designed with bollards or a fence that would be kept locked. In the event of an emergency requiring evacuation, police or fire personnel/vehicles would have access to remove the bollards/unlock the gate through a locked box (e.g., knox box) to enable access to the site and as a third egress option for Project residents to evacuate. The Project has been designed to ensure all streets and roads are adequate in terms of width, turning radius, and grade to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and to provide multiple points of emergency ingress and egress to ensure a safe evacuation in the event of an emergency.

The ability of the City’s police and fire services to protect future Project homes and residents is addressed in Section 3.12, Public Services and Recreation. As discussed, the Project site would be served by the City’s police and fire departments located at 1480 Main Street, approximately

0.2 miles from the site. Development of the Project site would increase the demand for fire protection and emergency services; however, as discussed on page 3.12-14, the Project is required to comply with Chapter 15.36 of the City’s Municipal Code and the State Building Code, which requires installation of approved automatic sprinkler systems in all single-family and multifamily buildings. The Project would be developed consistent with 1993 General Plan Policy 8.5.6 and 2019 General Plan Policy PS4.D, which requires new development to meet the minimum fire flow rates specified by the City’s Fire Code. In addition, as mentioned above all streets and roads are designed to be adequate in terms of width, turning radius, and grade to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and to provide emergency ingress and egress. The site and construction plans for the proposed single family homes and the multi-family development on Lot 52 would be subject to plan review by the City’s Fire Department to ensure proper access for fire and emergency response is provided and required fire suppression features are included.

Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation also addresses adequate emergency access under Impact 3.14-4 on page 3.14-51. The analysis reiterates what has previously been mentioned:
the Project includes two primary access points, Starr Avenue and Adams Street as well as a Agenda Item #6.1.

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 4-5
separate emergency vehicle access. In the event of an emergency there would be three roadways that would enable vehicles to safely enter/exit the Project site and all streets and roads would be designed to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and to provide alternative emergency ingress and egress.

Agenda Item #6.1.

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 4-7
MASTER RESPONSE 2: ST. HELENA WATER SUPPLY AND WATER NEUTRAL

POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT
Numerous commenters have questioned the ability of the City of St. Helena (City) to meet the water demands of the Hunter Subdivision project (Proposed Project or Project), the viability of relying on the City’s Water Neutral Policy, how the effects of climate change and current drought conditions are considered, and whether implications of the outcome of the City’s Water Audit lawsuit should be included in the analysis. The following responds to these concerns.

Water Demand
The Draft EIR addresses the City’s water supply and availability in Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems. The City currently sources its water supply from Bell Canyon Reservoir, extracted groundwater from the Stonebridge Well Complex, and water purchased from the City of Napa (DEIR pp. 3.13-2 and 3). Bell Canyon Reservoir has a physical storage capacity of 2,400 acre-feet (AF) with a safe yield estimated at between 500-1,100 AF. Existing water rights permit the City to divert up to 1,800 AF between November 15 and April 15 of each year. The City owns and operates two active groundwater wells, collectively known as the Stonebridge Well Complex, that have a combined capacity of approximately 595 gallons per minute (gpm). These wells have the potential to provide 960 acre-feet of potable water per year if both are operated continuously (DEIR p. 3.13-7).

However, the City limits groundwater production to a long-term average not to exceed 450 AF per year. As stated on page 3.9-19 of the Draft EIR, groundwater pumping at these two wells has averaged 350 AFY between 2006 and 2019, with a range of 182 acre-feet in 2012 to a high of 526 acre-feet in 2013. This period captures multi-year drought conditions and according to monitoring data of a groundwater monitoring well located approximately 600 feet from the Project site, the groundwater level trend has been stable through this period (DEIR p. 3.9-42).

The City of Napa is contracted to provide the City with a minimum of 600 AF of water with an option for an additional 200 AF when feasible (DEIR p. 4.13-4). In the 2019 watershed report for Bell Canyon, the reservoir provided 43.6% of the City’s water supply, the City of Napa supplied

42.5%, and the Stonebridge Wells the remaining 13.8% in 2018. However, the share of water from each source can change from year to year as the three sources of water supply allow for flexibility in order to adapt to changing conditions.

As shown in Table 3.13-1 on page 3.13-3 of the Draft EIR, the City’s water deliveries have varied from year to year but overall have shown a decreasing trend from 1,882 AF in 2013 to 1,629 AF in 2020. The City’s Safe Yield Committee determined that the potable water system can provide a total supply of up to 1,950 AF per year as a sustainable rate on a long-term basis (DEIR p. 3.13-11). This safe yield value recognizes that drought periods will be experienced and that circumstances may require the implementation of water restrictions (Phase III) during a dry year, but that these restrictions do not represent “undue hardships” (St. Helena Municipal Code Title 13 - Public Services, Chapter 13.04 Water Service System, Article 2 Water Shortage Emergencies, Drought and Water Conservation). The Committee considered “undue hardship” to be Phase IV or V restrictions, or three or more consecutive months of Phase III restrictions.

The domestic water demand for the Project at 19.88 AF per year is based on the Water Neutral Report prepared for the Project (Appendix J). The Water Neutral Report also estimates Agenda Item #6.1.

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 4-8
outdoor/landscaping uses, which would be served by the onsite agricultural well and is therefore separate from the analysis of domestic water use.

The Water Neutral Report conservatively assumes the Proposed Project will include eight persons per single family residence which is much higher than the City’s average of 2.45 persons per household (DEIR p. 3.13-24),
2 and therefore likely overstates actual water use. However, assuming this conservative estimate of 19.88 AF of domestic water use per year, the additional demand of the Project in combination with the recent total deliveries (1,629 + 19.88 = 1,648.88 AF) would still be far below the City’s adopted safe yield of 1,950. Therefore, the new water demand associated with the Proposed Project could be met by the City’s potable water system even without the water offset requirements of the City’s Water Neutral Policy, as discussed further below.

Water Neutral Policy
The City’s Water Neutral Policy included in Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency, of the Municipal Code requires that new development be water-neutral (from the City-delivered water system) through any combination of on-site water conservation measures and/or off-site retrofitting and/or use of well water (DEIR p. 3.13-21). For the Proposed Project, there are no opportunities for on-site water conservation since the site has no current water demand.

Therefore, the Project must demonstrate water neutrality through off-site retrofitting and system improvements which must be demonstrated in a quantitative water analysis of the Project.

Per Municipal Code Section 13.12.050, the developer is responsible for identifying residential or nonresidential properties eligible for retrofitting and verify to the Department of Public Works that the required number of retrofits have been completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Appendix J of the Draft EIR includes the quantitative water analysis completed for the Project as required by the Water Neutral Policy. The report concluded that the offset of the Project water demands could be met through financial assistance with existing system improvements (e.g., payment of required fee) commensurate with the cost of retrofitting existing residences with low flow fixtures, but also includes a variety of suggested methods to increase domestic water supply or reduce demand to offset the Project’s domestic water use.

As detailed in the Water Neutral Policy, the water demand of the Project would equate to retrofitting 333 residences with water conservation fixtures, but this is not to say that the policy can only be met through residential retrofits. For example, the Water Neutral Report referenced the potential for assisting the City in repairs to the transmission line between the City and Rutherford where a substantial amount of water is lost due to the current condition of the old pipeline. Reducing water losses is a gain for the supply system.

As part of the Project’s proposed Conditions of Approval it states that no building permits may be issued until the developer has identified and implemented offsite improvements that reduce water loss from the public water distribution system and/or identify and implement offsite improvements that result in a net increase in potable water availability equivalent to 19.8 AFY, 2 Exterior water demand (landscape irrigation, etc.) would be met by an onsite well and is not included in this estimate, which includes interior domestic uses only.

Agenda Item #6.1.

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 4-9
or a combination of these. Therefore, with adherence to this regulatory requirement and the required Conditions of Approval, occupancy of the Proposed Project would not occur until the City’s Public Works Department has verified completion of these retrofits or system improvements that meet the City’s construction standards to offset the Project’s new water demand. As a result, the City would be able to meet the Project’s water supply demand and result in a less-than-significant impact.

Climate Change
One of the effects of global climate change is an increase in variabilities of weather patterns and an increased probability to experience periods of drought. While climate change can create drier years in which precipitation is below annual averages, it can also result in very wet years.

The City recognizes that future periods of drought conditions are likely and may become more frequent. The establishment of the safe yield of 1,950 AF per year completed by the City’s Safe Yield Committee provides the parameters for long term management of water supply resources.

As discussed above, the new water demands for the Proposed Project would be offset through adherence to the City’s Water Neutral Policy where retrofits or system improvements equivalent to the proposed new demands would be in place prior to issuance of building permits for development of the Project.

However, as mentioned above, the City may still be forced to enact water conservation and/or water rationing requirements during drought periods because of strains on the system that would be due to the effects of climate change. The City’s Municipal Code (Title 13 - Public Services, Chapter

13.04 Water Service System, Article 2 Water Shortage Emergencies, Drought and Water Conservation) establishes the thresholds and requirements for water emergency phases, water conservation, and regulations that can adapt to changing conditions and enact emergency requirements for users as appropriate for long term water supply planning.

Therefore, the Draft EIR does consider the effects of climate change in Project impacts related to water supplies. The EIR determines that the Project can be adequately served based on existing water supplies. Compliance with the City’s Water Neutral Policy would further ensure that the Project does not adversely effect the City’s future water supplies.

Water Audit Lawsuit
Several comments have referenced the Water Audit lawsuit and have suggested that the outcome of that lawsuit should be considered as part of the analysis of water supply and hydrologic resources related to the Project. The lawsuit claims the City has violated its public trust in its management of water resources. The plaintiffs seek to increase monitoring and oversight of groundwater and surface water resources. The lawsuit claims poor documentation of water uses, including pumping at the City’s Stonebridge Well Complex, and water deliveries to vineyards, wineries, and the Meadowood resort.

The Water Audit’s complaint does not ask for changes to existing water uses. Instead, it seeks an injunction to stop the City from issuing new groundwater well drilling permits until enough Agenda Item #6.1.

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 4-10
information is available to make informed water allocation decisions. The Proposed Project does not include a requirement for a new groundwater well drilling permit and so a potential injunction on new well drilling permits would not affect the Project.

As discussed on page 3.9-15 of the Draft EIR, there is an inactive groundwater well located in the northern portion of the Project site that may have been historically used to provide construction water for the City’s Flood Protection Project and was used in the past for agricultural irrigation. The Project proposes to use this well for the irrigation of public and private landscaping and all other outdoor uses, which are estimated to require 17.16 AF per year (DEIR p. 3.13-32).

Regarding concerns about hydraulic conductivity with the adjacent Napa River, a site-specific well capacity and sustainability report was prepared that included conducting a 24-hour pump test as part of evaluating the hydrogeologic characteristics of the existing on-site well (Appendix L of the Draft EIR). The pump test ran at a rate of 40 gpm, which was nearly four times as high as the proposed rate for the Project (10.6 gpm). The study concluded that the onsite well draws from an aquifer with high transmissivity (i.e., ability of the water bearing unit to transmit water flow) and that the proposed pumping would not likely adversely affect either local water levels or Napa River flows. The onsite well is screened from 80 feet below ground surface (bgs) to 410 feet bgs, which is within the deeper volcanic aquifer and below the Napa Valley alluvium (the shallow water bearing unit that is considered hydraulically connected to the Napa River).

Therefore, whereas the Water Audit lawsuit is primarily concerned with the management of water resources that would affect the water levels of the Napa River, the well capacity and sustainability report determined that the pumping of the onsite well to supply the Project’s public and private landscaping would not adversely affect flows in the Napa River. The analysis under Impact 3.9-2 starting on page 3.9-40 of the Draft EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with using the on-site well.

Considering that the Project does not require obtaining a well drilling permit and that a sitespecific hydrogeologic study has demonstrated that the Project would not adversely affect water levels, the outcome of the Water Audit lawsuit would not alter the findings of the Draft EIR.

CEQA requires that the determination of significant effects be based on substantial evidence that include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, expert opinion supported by facts, and not speculation (CEQA Guidelines § 21082.2). Therefore, the final outcome of the Water Audit lawsuit may have ramifications for the City in its long-term management of water resources but would not affect the analysis or impact significance determinations that were made in the Draft EIR.

Agenda Item #6.1.

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 4-11
MASTER RESPONSE 3: NAPA RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION/LEVEE
The Hunter Subdivision Project (Project or Proposed Project) was in the past in a flood zone but is now protected from a 200-year flood event (equivalent to less than a 0.5% annual chance) by the St. Helena Comprehensive Flood Protection Project (Flood Protection Project). The Project does not have an impact on the Flood Protection Project’s effectiveness or on flood hazards for surrounding communities, either directly or indirectly.

Many commenters have raised concerns that the Project would put people and property at unreasonable risk if a major flood event overtops the levee3(i.e., greater than 200-year flood) and/or if the levee fails. These concerns generally revolve around the Project’s perceived physical impacts on the levee; the levee’s current condition, inspections, and maintenance; a perception that the project would increase existing flood risks for neighboring communities (e.g., Vineyard Valley and Hunt’s Grove); confusion over levee certification/accreditation; and legal, liability, and insurance questions.

Comments that raised concerns about growth inducement (due to the levee reducing SFHAs in the City) are comments on the Flood Protection Project, not the Project.

As a general matter, the bulk of the comments received do not question the accuracy of the information contained in the Draft EIR or the adequacy of the analysis presented. Rather, they express differing opinions about levels of acceptable risk and a lack of trust in the design, construction, and maintenance of the Flood Protection Project. The Draft EIR includes a detailed description of the flood hazards present; the engineering, design, and maintenance of the Flood Protection Project; and the City’s emergency management procedures in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality (Draft EIR pp. 3.9-6 through 3.9-13). This information was provided for reference purposes and addresses a majority of the comments received that relate to flooding and levee protection. The reason this information was included in the Environmental Setting section of Section 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality), rather than being addressed as an impact, is because impacts of the environment on a project or plan (as opposed to impacts of a project or plan on the environment) are beyond the scope of required CEQA review. 4 Flood Risks
The Project does not have an impact on the levee’s effectiveness or on flood hazards for surrounding communities, either directly or indirectly. California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents” but they must analyze hazards the project might risk exacerbating. For example, if a project proposes development on a site with existing subsurface hazards, then grading/development of the project may exacerbate the risk of those existing subsurface hazards. 3 Note that references to the levee are inclusive of the floodwall component of the Flood Protection Project. 4 “[T]he purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the project.” (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473.)
Agenda Item #6.1.

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 4-12
Accordingly, the State Office of Planning and Research’s 2018 revisions to the CEQA Guidelines—which the City uses as its CEQA thresholds of significance—removed reference to property damage, personal injury, or loss of life due to flooding or levee failure (i.e., pre-existing hazards) from Appendix G (included in the CEQA Guidelines).

Placement of the Project within an area protected from the 200-year flood does not substantially increase public exposure to flood risk, even though the risk is not zero. The Draft EIR acknowledges that there is residual risk to residents which is why the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA encourages the purchase of optional flood insurance (i.e., FEMA preferred risk policy) (Draft EIR p. 3.9-8, first paragraph). The Project’s Conditions of Approval require that prior to issuance of building permits, all future occupants will be provided information which describes the flood risk and notifies the buyer of the availability of low-cost Preferred Risk Policy flood insurance. Comments that address legal, liability, and/or insurance issues fall outside the scope of CEQA review, because they are not related to impacts of the project on the environment.

It is not the role of the Draft EIR to guarantee that there would be zero risk to life or property in the event of an extreme (i.e., greater than 200-year) or catastrophic flood event. The level of risk to the Project and its residents is reasonably and acceptably low due to the 200-year level of protection afforded by the Flood Protection Project. The description of flood emergency stages, preparedness, and response (Draft EIR pp. 3.9-11 and 3.9-12) remains accurate and indicates a reasonable plan for alerting and protecting residents from major flood events.

In the last paragraph on page 3.9-7, the Draft EIR speculates as to the style of flooding that would occur in the Project site based on its position outside of the regulatory floodway, if there were a levee overtopping event. The style of flooding would be dependent on the location, speed of water level rise, and levee response to an overtopping event. No portion of the Project site is located within the FEMA regulatory floodway. Therefore, the text on page 3.9-7 is revised to remove the reference to flooding being “slow and gradual.” Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR for the revised text.

For the same reasons, the text on page 3.9-12 is also revised to remove the characterization of what could happen in the event of a flood. As previously indicated, this would be an impact of the pre-existing environment on the Proposed Project rather than the Proposed Project’s impact on the environment. Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR for the revised text.

Clarification on Terminology/Concepts
Many commenters have expressed concern about the levee’s design and construction, because it was not designed and built by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and is maintained by the City. As noted above, the Project does not have an impact on the levee’s effectiveness or on flood hazards for surrounding communities, either directly or indirectly. California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents” but they must analyze hazards the project might risk exacerbating. Accordingly, comments Agenda Item #6.1.

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 4-13
regarding existing structures, such as the levee, that will not be directly or indirectly impacted the Project, are outside the scope of CEQA review for this Project.

However, for strictly informational purposes the City provides the following: there are numerous nonfederal levees throughout the United States that are safely built and maintained by local and/or state entities. The City of St. Helena Department of Public Works oversees inspection, maintenance and repairs of the levee, and has confirmed that the levee was designed and built by qualified contractors in accordance with ACOE engineering and safety standards (Draft EIR p. 3.9-8).

Levee certification is the process that deals specifically with the design and physical condition of the levee and is the responsibility of the levee owner or community in charge of the levee’s operations and maintenance. Certification must be completed for the levee to be eligible for accreditation by FEMA. Certification consists of documentation, signed and sealed by a registered Professional Engineer, as defined in Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR), Section 65.2. By virtue of FEMA’s approval of the City’s application for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and subsequent revision of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the levee is a FEMA-accredited levee system5that has undergone the certification process. While FEMA does not design, build, maintain, inspect, or certify levees, it uses the best available data about flood hazards and levee conditions to create FIRMs and Flood Risk Products (FRPs). These FIRMs and FRPs are tools that provide a more precise, up-to-date picture of the flood hazards facing levee-impacted areas, which is important given that the flood risks change over time.

The modern construction of the levee makes it more secure than other accredited levee systems that may have received accreditation decades ago, and the 200-year level of protection provides substantial additional protection against flooding that takes into consideration increased rainfall and runoff due to climate change.

Levee Condition and Maintenance/Inspections and City Detention Basin Several concerns were raised that the levee has not been properly maintained and may be subject to reduced performance due to animal burrows, erosion, and/or pump malfunctions. As discussed below, these issues are outside the scope of CEQA review of the Project, because the Project does not physically infringe upon or otherwise affect the levee. (See California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.) However, for strictly informational purposes, the City provides the following: the City employs qualified individuals to inspect the levee on a monthly basis to detect any potential issues and take action on them as they arise. For example, in the past issues were found with the operation/startup of the detention basin’s pump and it will be repaired by a qualified contractor.

Further, it is up to the professional judgement of the City’s engineer as to when any animal burrows may compromise the levee’s safety. Per the inspection reports, the City has an animal 5 A FEMA-Accredited Levee System is levee system that FEMA has shown on a FIRM that is recognized as reducing the flood hazards posed by a 1-percent-annual-chance flood. This determination is based on the submittal of data and documentation as required by 44CFR§65.10 of the NFIP regulations. The area landward of an accredited levee system is shown as Zone X (shaded) on the FIRM except for areas of residual flooding, such as ponding areas, which are shown as Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).

Agenda Item #6.1.

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 4-14
burrow control program in place and conducts burrow control activities as needed. The City also makes its levee inspection reports and summary reports available online here:
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/flood-control-and-river-restoration-project.

Several commenters referred to erosion or runoff from the Project affecting the City’s detention basin. These commenters are referred to Draft EIR pages 3.9-44 and 3.9-45, which explains that the detention basin was designed assuming the Project would consist of 70% impervious (developed) area, when in fact it would consist of about 58% impervious area. The estimate of the Project’s impervious surface coverage was calculated based on design drawings of the Project. Accordingly, as discussed in the Draft EIR on page 3.9-45, the Project would not contribute increase flows or erosion to off-site properties because the detention basin has been adequately sized and designed.

Commenters also requested information on what funds were used to construct the levee (Flood Control Project), what funds the City uses for repair and maintenance of the levee, what funds would be available to repair homes in the event of a levee breach, would the City be held liable in the event of a levee breach, and is the City non-compliant with the terms of Measure A.6 Concerns regarding the financing of the levee, ongoing repairs and maintenance, financing to address damages in the event of a catastrophic flood, and liability are outside the scope of CEQA review, because they are not related to impacts of the project on the environment. In addition, economic effects of a project are not considered significant effects on the environment unless the economic changes are connected to physical environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a)).

Regarding the comment suggesting that the City could be non-compliant with the County’s Measure A ordinance, it is assumed the commenter is referencing subsection G, which states “none of the projects are intended or designed to encourage population growth in the County.” To clarify, the Project site has been designated and zoned for residential development since the City’s 1975 General Plan. The City’s Flood Protection Project was designed consistent with the intent of Measure A to provide flood protection to residents and businesses in the County.

Development of this site with residential uses would not be considered encouraging new population growth in the City because this site has been planned for future development for over 45 years.
6 Measure A is an ordinance of the Napa County Flood Protection and Watershed Improvement Authority that adopted by Napa County residents in 1998. It is used to finance the Napa River Flood Protection Project. Each City and Town in Napa County receives a portion of Measure A revenues to fund flood protection projects. Subsection G states “none of the projects are intended or designed to encourage population growth in the County.” Agenda Item #6.1.

JOSHUA S. DEVORE
[email protected]
April 30, 2023
Via Email:

Mayor Paul Dohring, [email protected]
Vice Mayor Eric Hall, [email protected]
Council Member Anna Chouteau, [email protected] Council Member Lester Hardy, [email protected]
Council Member Billy Summers, [email protected] City Manager Anil Comelo, [email protected]
Community Development Director Maya DeRosa, [email protected] RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Environmental Impact Report. 2022-001, File #PL10-040 Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Hall, Council Members, City Manager Comelo, Community Development Director DeRosa:

As you are aware, we represent the Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future, a diverse group of City residents. We have provided several letters on this project to the Planning Commission on this project, highlighting several of the procedural and substantive deficiencies in the application process and consideration. (Those letters are included in your Agenda packet for the May 1 meeting, along with Staff’s responses, and we encourage you to review those letters in chronological order for context. We have not set out again every point in those letters for sake of brevity; although due to the importance of the issues, some of that information is restated and emphasized below.)
The Planning Commission nevertheless – reluctantly as can be seen in the video of the hearing – passed the project on to the City Council. The Planning Commission appeared severely cowered by pressure to approve housing. Its referral to the City Council is thus not in any way persuasive that the Environmental Impact Report warrants certification, nor the underlying tentative map.

A separate letter addresses the serious procedural and substantive issues with the tentative map itself and the Project generally failing to comply with the applicable General Plan and municipal code.

Review of the record shows the Planning Commission made the recommendation of approval on the notion the State is forcing it to approve housing. This violates CEQA. The decision to certify the EIR and approve the Project must only be made by the City because the City independently Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

believes it is complete and appropriate.1 The Housing Accountability Act clearly states that it does not overrule CEQA.2 The Council must make and take sole responsibility for its actions in exercising its judgment under CEQA and to the Project as a whole.

Prior correspondence to the Planning Commission highlighted the defects in the EIR. An attachment to the Staff Report for the February 7, 2023, Planning Commission meeting attempted to respond to those comments. Failing to do so credibly, Staff has tried again, with an additional response included as Attachment 28 to the Agenda Packet.

As discussed below, that response contradicts the EIR itself.3 It misunderstands the impact and direction of the changed Napa Valley Subbasin management policies set by Napa County. It displays an ignorance of the City and the way people live, work, and go to school here that is disheartening. And it either does not know what a firebreak is, or forgets the existing vineyards protecting the Monte Vista neighborhood, and in turn the rest of the City, that will be removed.

Certification of a final EIR requires this Council to exercise its own independent judgment and analysis.4 The Council should exercise that judgment to reject certification.

Required Findings
As discussed in our accompanying letter, the Project does not comply with the applicable general plan or zoning code. But even if it did, the subdivision Project must still be denied, as the Council can and must make the following findings:

1. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density.

2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified other than disapproval of the housing development project or approval upon condition that the project be developed at a lower density. 1 P.R.C. § 21082.1(c)(3) (“As part of the … certification of an environmental impact report, find that the report or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.”) 2 Gov. C. § 65589.5(e) (“Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).”
3 We note that the “Final” Final EIR, which was presented to the Planning Commission on February 7, 2023, was not posted on the City’s website in violation of P.R.C. 21082.1(d). Only an earlier October 2022 version of the document was posted.
4 P.R.C. § 21082.1(c)(3); CEQA Guideline 15090(a)(3).

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

(SHMC § 16.16.080(B).) For the following reasons, there is substantial evidence in the record that the Project presents adverse impacts to public health and safety which have not or cannot be mitigated.

By contrast, in order to Certify the EIR, the Council would need to find, in the exercise of its independent judgment, that “[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.”5 Where significant impacts on the environment are identified, as here, the Council would also need to find “that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.”6 Those findings must be based on substantial evidence in the record.7 As discussed further below, this standard for adoption of a statement of overriding considerations cannot be made on the current record.

The EIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Groundwater Impacts as the Proposed Well Use on the Property Is Contrary to Current Standards
As discussed in our prior letters but discussed further here in light of Staff’s latest attempted response, the Project is for the subdivision of a 16.92 acre property. The EIR analyzed its proposed groundwater use of an on-site well of up to 17.16 acre-feet per year to provide for all on-site irrigation of public and private landscaping, as well as a small remnant of an existing vineyard.8 Not only the Draft, but the Final EIR recognized the well on the property was not in use and described it repeatedly as “inoperable.” (E.g., DEIR at 3.9-43 (“the well is currently inoperable and would need to be repaired so it is operational.”); 3.13-1 (well “has been used historically to supply irrigation water to the site but is currently inoperable”; 3.9-15; 3.13-2; 3.13-32. The FEIR fixed typographical errors in the text of 3.13-2, but still states the well is not currently in operation.) The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed in March 2018 also says the well is inoperable.

Somewhat incredibly, Staff’s latest response in Attachment 28 on this issue is to directly contradict the EIR as to the “inoperable” well, and now claim that the well is operable after all. It attempts to drastically revise the CEQA baseline for the Project in an attachment to the Staff report that has not been circulated for public comment. Despite Staff’s eleventh-hour efforts, substantial evidence in the record states that there is no operating well on the property, and it has not been operating for a considerable period of time. The use of the well had been long abandoned. The required baseline of “existing” water use on the parcel is zero.9 5 P.R.C. § 21081(a)(1); see also CEQA Guideline 15091.
6 P.R.C. § 21081(b); see also CEQA Guideline 15093.
7 P.R.C. § 21081.5.
8 DEIR 3.9-40.
9 See Napa County Water Availability Analysis, May 12, 2015 (discussing throughout analysis of “existing” and “current” water usage compared to a proposed project.) Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

DEIR Appendix L, a September 9, 2021, Well Capacity Study Memorandum emphasizes that “it is recommended that the annual groundwater use conform with County policy.” While phrased as a suggestion by the consultant, this is indeed a legal requirement. The City has always deferred well issues to the County because the City does not have its own department to handle such issues.10
Disturbingly, DEIR Appendix L was omitted from the February 2023 Staff Report to the Planning Commission (which we noted at the time), and it has now been withheld from the City Council as well despite it being a critical subject. Appendix L was prepared under the prior standard of a maximum allocation of 1 acre-foot of water per acre. It found the Project already not in compliance with that standard. Given this repeated identified issue, we can only conclude the Applicant does not like its conclusion that the Project’s groundwater use must follow County policy and the use is not consistent with that policy, and thus had it removed it from the EIR and the Council’s materials.

No update of that analysis has been prepared to comply with the revised substantially reduced allocation limit of the lesser of 0.3 ac-ft/ac or no-net-increase, though the outcome is obvious:
the proposed project substantially exceeds the allowed groundwater allocation. The expert that prepared the Well Capacity Study has not opined on Staff’s latest response attempting to undo the record.

Seemingly belatedly realizing that the well usage is indeed a significant barrier to the Project, Staff, on behalf of the applicant, has now attempted to estimate a historical use of the well.

There is no evidence, factual or legal, that the no-net-increase calculation can be properly divined from a hypothetical long-abandoned previous use. Staff’s response, which is not attested to by a groundwater expert, attempts to reverse engineer a hypothetical past use that does not exist, of which there are no documented records, and which the EIR does not analyze. This is not competent, substantial evidence on which the Council can rely in certifying the EIR. (Indeed, it is not even referenced in the EIR, as it was just invented.) While historical use may in some cases be considered for baseline analysis (but only where the conditions have been in flux making the existing conditions not emblematic), there must be substantial evidence to support that baseline.11 “An existing conditions baseline shall not include hypothetical conditions….”12 To 10 As such, Napa County would appear to be a Responsible Agency for the project’s groundwater usage.

However, the EIR fails to identify Napa County as a Responsible Agency. 11 Contra CEQA Guideline 15125(a)(1) (“Generally, the lead agency should describe physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective.

Where existing conditions change or fluctuate over time, and where necessary to provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project's impacts, a lead agency may define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions, or conditions expected when the project becomes operational, or both, that are supported with substantial evidence.”)
12 CEQA Guideline 15125(a)(3) (emphasis added).

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

the extent Staff is now contending a different baseline should have been used, the EIR needs to be revised and recirculated.

In doing this, Staff brazenly accuses our prior comment of misunderstanding the County’s unambiguous policy of limiting the use of wells subject to discretionary project approval to the lesser of 0.3 acre-feet per acre or no net increase. That “no net increase” is from “existing” uses.13 This is readily apparent from the County’s simple summaries of the new policy, and a published FAQ.

The limitation to the lesser of ‘0.3 ac-ft/ac or no net increase’ applies to new discretionary uses of existing wells. A “Tier 1” analysis must be performed to document the “existing” uses on site and the potential increases. From the Napa County FAQ on the new well standards14:

10. Do the new standards apply to discretionary projects where projects rely on existing wells?
Yes, if the project involves an increase in groundwater use on the existing wells. …

14. Does the 0.3 AF/acre water use limitation also apply to new or modified discretionary permits?
Yes. The WAA Guidelines will be updated to reflect this, but this limit goes into effect immediately.

As stated by Napa County, its “new regulatory requirements for a Tier 1 analysis are pursuant to CEQA, Napa County's Water Availability Analysis (WAA) Guidelines, dated May 12, 2015, Napa County's Drought Emergency, Governor's Executive Order N-7-22, recent court decisions, and pending State litigation.”15
These rules are clear. These rules are dictated by State law. They are not optional. Ignoring the County’s requirements as dictated by State law, including CEQA and SGMA, and indeed the DEIR’s own expert, would be an abuse of discretion.
13 https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/25905/Well-Permit-Standards-and-WAARequirements--January-6-2023?bidId= 14 (See Napa County Well Permit Standards FAQ, available at https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/25906/Well-Permit-Standards-FAQs---15-July2022.) 15 https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/25905/Well-Permit-Standards-and-WAARequirements--January-6-2023?bidId= Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

The project needs to be revised to comply with the current water use limitations, and the EIR must be corrected and recirculated considering the changes in groundwater policy that are unanalyzed.16
Further, as we noted previously, significant new information has been made available which contradicts the EIR’s conclusions regarding the state of local groundwater. The significant new information from 2022 is that “Several wells located near the Napa Valley Subbasin margin in the northeastern Napa area, southwestern Yountville area, and southeastern St. Helena area show periods of groundwater decline during times of drought.”17 Although the proposed findings for the Project have been slightly modified since we noted this critical information, the EIR’s simply ignoring the evidence of an increase in the severity of the project’s impacts on groundwater resources is not reasonable.

As we said previously, the project needs to come up with at least an additional 12 acre-feet of water from somewhere else. It cannot do so from the well. The latest response does not change this fact. It does appear Staff, in consultation with the Applicant but not the public, have recognized this is a major problem; but are unwilling to address it directly. Staff have revised one of the conditions for the project: Proposed Condition of Approval 85 now suggests that the well should nevertheless be used for the project in violation of County policy, but then abandoned “if” the contemplated City reclaimed water system ever reaches the site. This is inconsistent with the law and, in any event, unreasonable.

The EIR Fails to Conduct the Required Well Interference Analysis Further, and relatedly, the water neutrality analysis credits the more-than-17 acre-feet of water use from the well to “groundwater” as opposed to the City’s water. By doing so it is purportedly not subject to the City’s water neutrality ordinance. But this ignores the fact that the project site well is likely drawing from the same basin that supplies the City’s wells. While Staff’s latest response in Attachment 28 argues that some of the City’s drinking water comes from other reservoirs, it has no actual response to the fact that the Project well will extract groundwater very close to the City’s Stonebridge well, and thus is simply taking the City’s water via other means.

There is no analysis of well interference which would suggest that the onsite well is a different source of water than the City’s wells. This is despite the City’s September 27, 2018 Second Notice of Identified Issues Letter specifically requiring a well interference analysis. 18 Thus, the EIR
16 Note also that, because the well is proposed solely as non-potable water for outdoor irrigation and other nonconsumption uses, the well is not a public water system that might otherwise be entitled to exceed this limit. 17 (Napa Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Summary, Executive Summary (Jan. 2022) p. 2, available at https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/23549/GSP_Executive-SummaryAbstract?bidId=.) 18 Available at: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/ project/3486/second_issues_letter-final.doc.pdf
Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

should have analyzed well interference. Having failed to do so, the well usage should have been included in the water neutrality analysis and required offset.

As discussed above, the failures to address significant new information regarding changes to County groundwater policy driven by State law and the depletion of groundwater locally is directly related to the severity of the project’s impact on groundwater resources and requires additional analysis. The EIR failed to analyze well interference, an issue that was specifically identified as a potential significant impact. The EIR cannot be certified until these real and significant issues are addressed. Depletion of groundwater above allowed limits from the City’s groundwater source presents an adverse impact to public health and safety that has not been properly analyzed or mitigated.

The EIR’s Water Neutral Analysis Is Outdated and Deficient Relying on the well for exterior water use and excluding it from its calculations, the EIR fancifully suggests that the Project will be water neutral, despite its demand for nearly 20 acre-feet (approximately 6.5 million gallons) per year beyond that produced by the onsite well. However, this conclusion is drawn from an analysis of potential water offsets from several years prior to the recent drought, the Phase I and Phase II water emergencies, and the substantial cutbacks that were made by residents of the City in response. Those measures greatly reduced water usage already, and there has been no update to the potential water offset analysis in several years, rendering it meaningless. As such, the Water Neutral Report, DEIR Appendix J, is fatally deficient and must be updated to account for current conditions. It relies on an analysis of potential water saving measures from February 2017.19 There has been no consideration of the substantial changes in the last six years. Substantial new information has emerged since that time that has not been incorporated, including the responses to the drought and water emergency.

At the very least, the EIR cannot be certified until Appendix J is updated, as there is no reliable evidence to conclude the water neutrality requirements can be met.

We also note the Applicant has recently requested revision of the Project’s conditions of approval to allow for piecemeal compliance with the water neutrality ordinance. That request should be rejected. Given the scope of the offsets required, the Applicant will need to undertake a major water offset project prior to construction, and any such project must be considered in coordination with the development Project as a whole. It cannot be allowed to attempt to offset one house at a time.

The EIR Fails to Analyze or Mitigate Traffic and GHG Impacts The Project’s impacts on vehicles and traffic have of course been a major issue of contention. As the Staff report notes, the Project came to halt nearly a decade ago because improvements were 19 DEIR Appx. J at Attachment 3, Municipal Water Saving Measures (Feb. 2017).

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

needed to the Silverado Trail/Pope Street intersection. The Applicant has now tried to move forward ignoring those necessary improvements.

More recently, the Applicant’s counsel itself and numerous commenters opposed to the project have stated that the traffic analysis for the project is deficient. While the sides obviously offer different reasons and seek opposing results, it does appear that no one thinks the traffic analysis done here has been sufficient.

As we noted previously, there is extensive evidence in the record that the project’s impacts on traffic are improperly analyzed and not mitigated despite available solutions being previously proposed. Although the Applicant suggests only vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and not level of service (LOS) should be the standard under CEQA, the only traffic study provided focuses on the latter.

Yet the EIR completely fails to thoroughly analyze or mitigate VMT. The DEIR’s analysis uses an Affordable Housing percentage of 28.73%, whereas as of the current application, there is officially none. Staff’s latest attempted response is that there must be some affordable housing in order to comply with the City’s code, but no one can say exactly how much because no one knows, as the required information has not been submitted.

The EIR, apparently without relying on any traffic experts, essentially concludes that though the City has not adopted VMT significance thresholds, that the project is indeed significant in its impact, but that there is no mitigation available. This suggestion is directly contrary to the general plan itself, which provides for improvements to the City’s street network that would lessen the length of the project’s trips – particularly connection of Adams to Silverado Trail.20 No analysis, however, was conducted; the only traffic study that was prepared on behalf of the Applicant generally indicated that the Project should be required to make improvements to the road network.

Staff’s response to this issue is essentially that it sounds expensive and complicated, so there is no reason to look into it. That is not a reasonable response: this is a major development. It will likely cost a hundred million dollars to construct. It will generate well more than that in sales for the developer. That a necessary available on-site mitigation is ignored and unanalyzed because it might cost a small percentage of that is not reasonable.

In short, there is no credible evidence in the record to support the finding that reasonable mitigations or changes have been incorporated into the project to account for the significant impact of VMT, let alone LOS. The operative traffic study identified that road improvements were necessary mitigation. The Project was tabled for nearly a decade for this reason.

The Traffic Study (DEIR Exhibit K) – which the EIR appears to suggest now applies to analysis of the general plan rather than CEQA – repeatedly fails to use reasonable assumptions for the 20 DEIR 3.14-19.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

Project, substantially undercounts the expected traffic increase, and does not comport its analysis with the description or stated intended use of the Project. But whether or not the traffic study is used in consideration with CEQA’s transportation element, the EIR’s Greenhouse Gas analysis does depend on the traffic study. (DEIR 3.7-27.) As such, the flaws in the traffic study are a CEQA issue as well as a general plan issue, and the operational Greenhouse Gas analysis is inadequate. Idling vehicles are a substantial contributor to GHG emissions.21 The EIR fails to analyze the significant impact of idling vehicles resulting from the Project sitting in the unmitigated traffic it will create.

Among other issues with the traffic study, the 11 Accessory Dwelling Units, which are touted as providing additional workforce housing, are allocated only 4 AM Peak Hour outbound trips. This makes no objective sense. Reasonable assumptions would suggest the affordable and multifamily units to lead to more trips for the residents of those units given the nature of the local workforce. Staff indicates that standard assumptions were used for these estimates, but there is nothing standard about work-force life in Napa Valley. There is no subway to walk to. Jobs are widely distributed and require driving for essentially all workers. Project-specific analysis is required where general assumptions are known to be inapplicable. The traffic study thus fails to account for the unique nature of the Napa Valley economy and local transportation demands, and significantly understates the impact of the Project.

It also ignores the reality of life in Saint Helena. For example, the traffic report apparently incredibly claims that the 87 new units will result in only two (2) people driving their children to school by crossing Main at Adams – the main access to the Project. And only one (1) will go pick their child up. (Traffic Study Figure 8, February 2023 Staff Report p. 2007.) Staff’s latest response in Attachment 28 is to reveal its ignorance of St. Helena: its response is to “assume this comment refers to students attending St. Helena Elementary School on Adams Street” and to acknowledge the estimate of seven (7) students attending just that school (already belying the traffic study).

But anyone that actually lived here would know that all four of our public schools are on the west side of town. Getting to all of them from the Project would involve crossing or accessing Main Street, which is most likely to occur at Adams. Staff’s suggestion that parents could choose other routes that are already known to be worse, such as Hunt Avenue or Pope Street, does not bolster the traffic analysis. Indeed, the Project is shown to have a material adverse impact on Pope/Main already.

Even worse, the existing analysis ignores the significant impact that the Project would have on evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. While for an individual scale event, it is possible that connection of Adams to Starr would be beneficial as the EIR and Staff suggests, that is not 21 See, e.g., U.S. Dept. of Energy, Idling Reduction for Personal Vehicles, available at https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/idling_personal_vehicles.pdf.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

supported by substantial evidence for the case of a large-scale event. The City remains bottlenecked, particularly at Pope/Silverado.

As we discussed previously, the traffic study shows a nearly-quarter mile backup at the Pope Street bridge by 2040. The report admits “the project would be inconsistent with the City’s LOS policies at the Silverado Trail/Pope Street intersection.” And, shamefully, the Traffic Report essentially throws up its hands in acknowledging that improvements to Silverado Trail and Pope Street are necessary; but because they might be hard, nothing can be done about it.

The Traffic Report includes several required mitigation measures and improvements that are recommended to address traffic issues, yet none have been incorporated into the project. While the latest Staff response baldly suggests that the applicant cannot be required to construct these improvements individually, it does not conduct any analysis to reach that conclusion. Rather, the necessary improvements – especially connection of Adams to Silverado Trail, meet the Nollan/Dolan essential nexus and rough proportionality tests given that the improvement is necessarily located on, and immediately adjacent to, a very large-scale project.22 And again, the Silverado Trail/Pope improvements were previously identified as necessary for the Project as well, which is why it languished. By failing to address these necessary issues, the project thus plainly is inconsistent with the General Plan, whether or not LOS is considered as a CEQA element.

The suggestion that a statement of overriding considerations can be adopted now without attending to the previously identified issues is contrary to law. Prior to adopting a statement of overriding considerations, the law requires that a finding be made that the impact is unavoidable and that changes or alterations have been included to mitigate or avoid the significant impacts.23 That finding must be based on substantial evidence in the record.24 However, the record of the Project, dating back more than a decade, is replete with evidence that traffic impacts of the Project can indeed be mitigated, and failure to do so is contrary to the applicable general plan principles.

Both the above-noted improvements to Silverado Trail/Pope Street and the planned connection of Adams Street to Silverado Trail have been repeatedly identified as mitigations to the impacts and risks of the project. Further, connection of Adams Street to Silverado Trail would substantially lessen project vehicle miles travelled (VMT), allowing project traffic direct access to a major thoroughfare without the additional distance travelled through City streets. Because such improvements are specifically contemplated in the City’s long-term plans, but neither properly analyzed nor included as mitigation measures, failure to require the project to carry out this immediately-adjacent improvement that would directly mitigate the project’s impacts on VMT (and LOS) is contrary to the evidence in the record and clearly inconsistent with the General Plan. 22 Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm. (1987) 483 U.S. 825; Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374. 23 P.R.C. § 21081.
24 CEQA Guideline 15093.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

The EIR Fails to Analyze or Mitigate Impacts to Public Safety These failings to mitigate the Project’s impacts on the road network underscore the EIR’s failure to seriously analyze its substantial danger to the public, including wildfire and flood risks.

Although the EIR notes that the property actually burned during the Glass Fire, there is no other acknowledgement that the property currently serves as critical firebreak for the rest of the City.

Incredibly, Staff’s latest response suggests that the Project site does not meet the definition of a firebreak. Staff apparently forgets the existing vineyard on the property – vineyards are widely recognized as acting as crucial firebreaks.25
The Board of Forestry’s recently adopted 2021 State Fire Regulations emphasize the need to preserve and implement firebreaks in projects.26 The EIR and proposed findings repeatedly ignore the Project’s location near the SRA Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Although the EIR Thresholds in the proposed Findings repeatedly state the issue of concern to be whether a project is “in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones” (VHFHSZ), the findings of less-than-significant impacts and related explanations repeatedly state only that the Project is not “in” the VHFHSZ.

Although the proposed findings say on page 63 that the Project is not near a SRA or VHFHSZ, that is obviously incorrect, making the entirety of the EIR’s wildfire analysis unreliable and contrary to evidence. The Project is immediately adjacent to the VHFHSZ:
25 See, e.g., https://www.northbaybiz.com/2018/06/28/vineyards-as-firebreaks/ 26 The project is not technically subject to CAL FIRE’s jurisdiction, but the agency’s emphasis on firebreaks is highly instructive and persuasive. Failure to adhere to State Fire Regulations that did not technically apply, and the naïve belief that urban development was immune to wildland fires, led to the destruction of Coffey Park in the 2017 Tubbs Fire. (Despite clear risks, Santa Rosa neighborhood that burned down was exempt from state fire regulation, LOS ANGELES TIMES (Oct. 15, 2017), available at: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-coffey-park-explainer20171011-story.html.) Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

(CAL FIRE State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map.)27 The failure to analyze the Project as “near” the SRA/VHFHSZ is a critical shortfall. Again, this property actually burned in the Glass Fire.

Removing the Project’s critical firebreak of six acres of vineyard is a wildfire impact that is not even acknowledged, let alone analyzed and mitigated. Removing the protective vineyard and expanding development at the Wildland-Urban Interface presents a clear and present danger to the current residents of the entire City. At a minimum, the Project must be revised and conditioned to retain a firebreak between the new development and existing development by leaving the existing vineyard intact.

The risk is substantially worsened by the failure to address the needed road improvements.

Without connection of Adams Street to Silverado Trail and the mitigation of the Silverado Trail/Pope Street intersection conditions, the Project presents substantial threats to public safety.28 The Project lacks safe emergency access and egress and would worsen existing emergency evacuation times for residents of the City. The Project creates specific threats to public safety by failing to mitigate its everyday traffic impacts and ignoring the potential for loss 27 See https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps-2022/. 28 E.g., DEIR App. K, p. 15 (February 2023 Staff Report p. 1989) (Finding of the current Pope Street bridge: “emergency access can be impeded due to congestion along the bridge, creating difficulty for services to be provided to areas along Silverado Trail.”)
Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

of life and property that could occur as a result of the increased traffic on already overburden public roads during a wildfire.

Meanwhile, the Project will obstruct emergency access for existing residents, particularly those in Vineyard Valley. There is no evidence that the levee maintenance road is a suitable evacuation road for the Project. It does not meet the City’s Fire Department Access Road Standards, which requires a 30-foot paved road with two feet of shoulders.29, 30 The second access to Lot 52 also
fails to meet this standard. (Relatedly, it is also unclear how the proposed terminus of Adams Street actually fits in the indicated location, which appears to require grading of the current western end of the levee.)
To the extent the levee maintenance road is a planned emergency access route for the Project, it must be improved to meet the City’s Fire Access Road standards as part of the Project.31 In turn, the environmental impacts thereof must be identified and examined in a revised EIR.

There is no evidence that the contemplated additional emergency access point onto the levee can be technically or legally constructed, particularly in light of the required conservation easements and numerous permit issues related to the flood control project, including the Incidental Take Permit under the Endangered Species Act.

The potential construction of housing behind a levee that appears to be substandard and poorly maintained is a significant threat to public safety that has been repeatedly downplayed by the Applicant and Staff, and requires rejection of this Project as currently proposed. As noted by other commenters, the City has repeatedly failed to maintain the levee, yet is financially responsible for the massive liability a failure would cause. As the Project is proposed behind a levee for which the City is entirely responsible, any failure thereof would result in ruinous liability to the City. Unless the Applicant is conditioned to post a security for the liability that it is seeking to take on by developing in a high-risk location, the financial risk of the Project cannot be concluded to warrant a statement of overriding considerations.

The current reemergence of Tulare Lake, inundating 100 square miles of homes and farms, is a prescient reminder that water finds a way to get to the lowest point, despite humans’ efforts to defy gravity.32 As the Project presents a real threat to the safety of the public, it should be rejected irrespective of any other considerations -- whether or not it technically complies with 29 See City of St. Helena Street, Storm Drain & Sidewalk Standards, available at https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/2491/publicworkscitystand ards_0.pdf
30 We also note the levee maintenance road does not even meet the lesser Road and Street Standards dictated by Napa County or CAL FIRE for safe evacuation from a property with more than four residences of a paved 20’ road with 2’ shoulders. See Napa County Road and Street Standards, 2023, available at:
https://napa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11891814&GUID=307CAE5E-C950-4706-9300-255BFD6D91A2 31 But there is no evidence the levee was designed to carry traffic or support a road, and correspondence from 2015 appears to suggest that the levee was not designed or anticipated to carry a roadway. 32 https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/tulare-lake-flooding-california-17905335.php Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

the City’s zoning code or general plan (which as we have noted separately, it does not.) (Gov. C. § 65589.5(j)(1)(A) (“The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved.”)).

The EIR Is Deficient on Numerous Other Topics that Reveal Its Bias The EIR’s analysis of numerous other topics is insufficient and shows a lack of serious effort to identify and mitigate impacts of the Project. Amongst those issues are the following:

Aesthetics
The EIR suggests there will be no impact on aesthetics, despite the Project being designed contrary to the General Plan’s prohibition on the use of cul-de-sacs that obstruct vineyard views.

The Project will substantially alter the current view from Adams Street/Library Lane, and remove or otherwise obstruct current vineyard and hillside views. While the EIR and proposed findings suggest the project will undergo design review in the future, no actual designs or use permit application for the multi-family parcel has been considered. As such, the EIR’s conclusions are based on speculation, not actual substantial evidence in the record. This is the result of the Project’s piecemeal consideration in violation of City code.

Moreover, while the EIR acknowledges the impact of lighting and requires mitigation by the Applicant, there does not appear to be any restriction on future residents from modifying or altering exterior lighting. The mitigation should be revised to address the potential for future spillover lighting-related issues and impose restrictions through appropriate CC&Rs.

Agricultural Resources
The Project calls for removal of multiple acres of vineyard directly contrary to the General Plan.

5.8 acres of Prime Farmland will be lost, again directly contrary to the General Plan, in addition to an 0.6 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance. The failure to fully analyze or adopt an alternative project to preserve that Farmland lacks substantial or persuasive evidence to justify that this loss cannot be avoided or mitigated.

Air Quality
As discussed above, the Project’s operation GHG emissions due to its contribution to vehicles stuck in traffic has not been properly analyzed. Vehicle emissions degrade air quality, both of GHG components and other emissions. As such, the EIR fails to fully consider the Project’s air quality impacts.

Biological Resources
The Project is immediately adjacent to the Napa River and the habitat restoration project on the riparian side of the levee. The Project intends to fill four wetlands. While the project is required to obtain a permit for such fill, the proposed findings do not provide any evidence that such fill is Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

unavoidable, or that Alternative 3, the Park/Open Space Alternative which would preserve the wetlands, is not an environmentally superior alternative to the Project. Indeed, the Alternatives’ analysis is sorely lacking, as there are numerous issues with the proposed Project that could have been address by Alternatives, particularly those that avoid removal of the vineyards.

Land Use and Planning
As discussed in the accompanying correspondence, the Project is wildly at odds with the applicable 1993 General Plan policies. It is likewise at odds with the current General Plan as well, for essentially the same reasons. The EIR’s conclusion that the Project is consistent with the applicable General Plan and land use regulations, including the City’s subdivision code, is contrary to the evidence in the record.

Noise
Because no design and no use permit for the multi-family development on Lot 52 has been presented, it is impossible to evaluate the noise impacts of a dense but undefined development.

The EIR lacks any, let alone substantial evidence to support a finding, that the Project, and particularly Lot 52, will not have a significant impact on noise. Once again, the piecemeal approach to the Project renders the EIR insufficient as it fails to consider the whole of the Project.

Recreation
Although the EIR discusses the Project’s potential impact on the use of other recreational facilities, it wholly ignores that the site is currently used for recreation, and that recreation site will be lost as a result of the Project. The Project will have a significant and unavoidable impact on recreation for the countless residents that currently use the property for recreation purposes.

The proposed findings failure to even mention, let alone mitigate, these impacts lacks substantial evidence and fails to acknowledge the significant impact the Project will have on area residents’ recreation.

Failure to Provide Affordable Housing
Because of the significant unavoidable impacts on the environment the Project will have, a statement of overriding considerations is required. A statement of overriding considerations requires balancing of, inter alia, the economic benefits of the project with its demands on the environment. However, there is no affordable housing agreement to consider that might balance the benefits of the Project to the pressing need for affordable housing. As noted separately, to the extent an affordable housing agreement is to be proposed in connection with the Project, it must be considered concurrently in order to meaningfully balance the economic and social impacts of the Project. Without that, any purported benefit would be purely speculative and lack substantial evidence.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

Given the absence of an affordability plan to consider, there is no basis to conclude that the Project will provide the needed affordable housing consistent with the City’s requirements that would warrant a statement of overriding considerations. As noted in our accompanying letter, the Applicant’s prior efforts to propose an Affordable Housing Agreement were soundly rejected.

The project design of shunting a potentially affordable multifamily project to the side of the single-family development was found contrary to the City’s inclusionary policies. Relying solely on the position that the City’s code requires some affordable housing and therefore justifies a current factual finding that the Project does provide that benefit is akin to concluding that every project complies with the law because the law requires it to.

This is not an instance where the Applicant simply has not yet proposed a plan. It did, and it was soundly rejected. The February 2020 Notification to the Applicant33 was clear:
as we have discussed previously, City staff continues to have concerns with the fact that a portion of the affordable units will be provided as rental ADUs and the remainder of the affordable units clustered on a single parcel. Section

17.146.050(I) declares:

Affordable units shall be comparable in number of bedrooms, exterior appearance and overall quality of construction to market rate units in the same residential project. Subject to the approval of the planning commission, square footage of affordable units and interior features in affordable units need not be the same as or equivalent to those in market rate units in the same residential project, so long as they are of good quality and are consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. Affordable units shall be dispersed throughout the residential project, or, subject to the approval of the planning commission, may be clustered within the residential project when this furthers affordable housing opportunities.

The Planning Commission has not been presented with any request to approve such a design.

Indeed, City Staff concluded in 2020 that:
the affordable units are not dispersed throughout the project. Over two-thirds of the units are located on a single parcel, and an additional eleven ADUs will be located on a handful of the other 51 lots. The proposal does not meet the spirit nor the letter of the requirement that the units be dispersed throughout the project.34 It appears that the current external planning consultant is ignoring City Staff’s prior conclusions and did not include this information in its staff report for the Planning Commission to consider.

The Planning Commission has now passed the project to the City Council without any analysis of 33 Notification of Final Unresolved Issues and Questions (Feb. 27, 2020), available at:
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/project/3486/02-20- 2020_unresolved_issues_and_questions_hunter-final-c2.pdf. 34 Id.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

the conflict of the Project with the City’s affordable housing policy.35 Worse, the Staff Report provided to the City Council notes that the Applicant submitted a proposed Affordable Housing Agreement on February 1, 2019, but does not mention the City’s rejection in 2020 discussed above. This raises serious questions as to whether the EIR reflects the City’s “independent judgment,” 36 and whether the City Council is receiving the full and complete analysis it is entitled to in making such a profoundly important decision.

Given the Applicant’s repeated failures to submit an acceptable affordable housing plan, it is impossible to conclude that the Project will comply with the City’s affordable housing policy.

Indeed, the effort to approve solely the subdivision map to allow the creation of 51 single-family lots without scrutiny of the affordable housing component appears intended precisely to avoid the need to comply with the City’s policies of integrating affordable housing of similar types and styles into a project.

To be blunt, the only integrated affordable housing proposal appears to be that a handful of rich people will make money off some poor people living in their backyards, while the rest of the affordable units are packed together in place of an existing vineyard. City Staff previously found this proposal not to meet City code. To approve the Project as currently presented, the Council will now need to ignore City Staff’s prior conclusion it is contrary to City code. The City Council would need to make an affirmative finding that the Project is consistent with the City’s affordability program and general plan and warrants approval despite its significant unavoidable impacts. It cannot do so on this record.

In light of the above, the Council must exercise its independent judgment to conclude the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan and municipal code and has failed to submit an acceptable affordability proposal or design, and to require the Project to be redesigned consistent with the City’s objective standards.

The Required Findings for a Statement of Overriding Consideration Cannot Be Made Statements of overriding consideration are required to explain in detail how and why the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts and why the City is willing to accept such impacts. CEQA Guideline 15093 provides the following instructions:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposal project outweigh the 35 See generally, Report to the City Council, Special City Council 01 May 2023. 36 P.R.C. § 21082.1(c)(3).

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The draft statement of overriding consideration fails to identify real, quantifiable benefits, and does not have evidence to rely on for affordable housing in particular. Again, there is no actual affordable housing proposal and the prior proposal was soundly rejected on the basis that the Project’s design was discriminatory and inconsistent with City policy and the General Plan. The draft barebones statement “The Project provides needed housing to the City, particularly affordable housing” is not supported by any meaningful evidence in the record and is contrary to the current state of the Project. The Project does not supply a mix of types and affordability of housing as required by the General Plan, and does not supply any of the critical middle-income housing that is sorely lacking in the City.

By evading consideration of the Project’s implementation of affordable housing requirements and multi-family use and design elements, it attempts to lock in a single-family development with no opportunity to require compliance with the City’s inclusionary housing policies or General Plan requirements for a mix of housing types.

The apparent suggestion that simply all housing projects are good and must be approved is wrong. The Planning Commission made this error. The City Council should not repeat it.

Conclusion
The Applicant has repeatedly attempted to avoid scrutiny of the design of its project. The EIR presented for Certification poorly analyzes only a hypothetical, unsubmitted project, not the Project currently under consideration by the Council. In doing so, the EIR has failed to analyze numerous elements of the Project. Some are incapable of full consideration, such as aesthetics, without an actual proposed multi-family project. Others are clearly inadequate on the current record as discussed in detail above.

As detailed above, the Project’s problems are numerous and, in short, present significant threats to public safety, and fail to meet the legal requirements of the City and the State with respect to, at a minimum, safety, environmental, water, and affordable housing.

The Project puts the current residents of the City at substantial risk to benefit White Fang LLC’s development interests.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

The EIR should not be certified. The substantial deficiencies discussed above require remediation and recirculation following the Applicant’s submission of all of the necessary information for consideration of the whole of the Project.

Sincerely,

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC
Joshua S. Devore
cc: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney, [email protected]
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk, [email protected] Agenda Item #6.1.

JOSHUA S. DEVORE
[email protected]
April 30, 2023
Via Email:

Mayor Paul Dohring: [email protected]
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: [email protected]
Council Member Anna Chouteau: [email protected] Council Member Lester Hardy: [email protected]
Council Member Billy Summers: [email protected] City Manager Anil Comelo: [email protected]
Community Development Director Maya DeRosa: [email protected] RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040 Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Hall, Council Members, City Manager Comelo, Community Development Director DeRosa:

As you are aware, we represent the Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future, a diverse group of City residents. We have provided several letters on this project to the Planning Commission on this project, highlighting several of the procedural and substantive deficiencies in the application process and consideration. (Those letters are included in your Agenda packet for the May 1 meeting, along with Staff’s responses, and we encourage you to review those letters in chronological order for context. We have not set out again every point in those letters for sake of brevity.)
The Planning Commission nevertheless –reluctantly as can be seen in the video of the hearing – passed the project on to the City Council. The Planning Commission appeared severely cowered by pressure to approve housing. Its referral to the City Council is thus not in any way persuasive that the tentative map nor its accompanying Environmental Impact Report warrant approval. A separate letter addresses the serious issues with the Environmental Impact Report.

This project has an extensive history. It was previously halted nearly a decade ago due to its impacts on traffic and needed improvements to the Pope Street/Silverado Trail intersection. It has recently moved forward, ostensibly on the notion that traffic is no longer an issue of concern under the California Environmental Quality Act, and thus can be ignored. This is incorrect – the impact on traffic is still highly relevant to whether the project is consistent with the General Plan.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

But there are also countless other issues with the project raised by the hundreds of public comments raised in opposition. Some of these significant items are discussed further below.

In short, this Council’s function is to determine whether the project is consistent with the City’s residents’ vision of St. Helena as described in the General Plan. Where it is not, it is the Council’s job to reject the project to protect the current residents from the deigns of out-of-town developers. Given the languishing of this project by the applicant, it is subject to the 1993 General Plan rather than the current one; but its failures to fulfill the City’s vision are nonetheless apparent.

The City Council Meeting Must Be Rescheduled Because It Does Not Comply with the Law As a preliminary matter, the City Council has set the matter for hearing on May 1, 2023. That hearing is illegal and contrary to City code. The Planning Commission was required to file its report and recommendation with the City Council prior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map. (SHMC § 16.16.070. (“At the next regular city council meeting following the filing of the planning commission’s report with it, the city council shall fix the hearing date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty (30) days thereafter.”)) That did not happen. Indeed, no Planning Commission report and recommendation was prepared separate from the Staff Report prepared by Interwest Consulting Group provided with the public agenda for the May 1, 2023 Special Meeting.

This failure to proceed as required by law has deprived the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the legally mandated Planning Commission report and recommendation prior to the project being set for a hearing. The May 1, 2023, Special Meeting is thus contrary to law and must be rescheduled properly pursuant to SHMC § 16.16.070.

Indeed, it appears throughout the recent process that the City has been poorly served by the latest consultant on the project, Interwest Consulting Group. There has been no independent review of the project - only advocacy for the applicant by the retained outside service. The City has been repeatedly advised to ignore its municipal code to benefit the applicant. The City Council should take a sharp eye to any of the analysis provided by Interwest Consulting Group.

Indeed, as discussed further below, the analysis is repeatedly directly contrary to the facts and law.

The Tentative Map Cannot Be Approved Because the Complete Project Has Not Been Presented to the City, As Required by Law
As described extensively in our prior correspondence to the Planning Commission, the City’s code clearly and unambiguously requires the applicant to submit for all of the necessary approvals to carry out the project, including an affordable housing agreement and required multi-family use permit prior to consideration of a tentative map. The applicant has not done that. This failure to proceed as required by law is fatal to the project, and any approval will be a clear abuse of discretion.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

As we set out previously in additional detail, Title 16 of the Saint Helena Municipal Code, the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, provides unambiguously that:

All applicants for tentative maps and tentative parcel maps shall concurrently submit applications for all other discretionary approvals, including but not limited to, conditional use permits, variances, rezonings, and general plan amendments.
(Subdivision Ord., § 16.04.120 (emphasis added.)) Here, however, the Staff Report directly admits “future applications” are required for additional discretionary portions of the project. This renders the approval illegal, the record incomplete, and consideration now directly contrary to Section 16.04.120’s mandate that the requests be made “concurrently.” This isn’t just a procedural nicety. Such a system makes perfect sense, as otherwise it is impossible to consider the whole of the project. Ignoring this rule is ignoring the entirety of the Project.

Attachment 29 to the May 1 Agenda, Staff ’s second attempt at a response to our prior letter to the Planning Commission of February 6, 2023, acknowledges this failing by the applicant to submit the required approvals over the dozen years the Project has been pending. But it attempts to ignore that failure by arguing that the Applicant was supposedly not told of the requirements, and a state law adopted some six years after the application was deemed complete prevents the City from following its law now. That is wrong on both the facts and the law.

For example, the April 17, 2018 Notification of Identified Issues clearly identifies the requirement for and cites the code sections for the Affordable Housing and Conditional Use Permit for Multifamily Housing. The suggestion that the Applicant was not notified of these issues previously is contrary to the record:

The type of uses conceptually proposed on Lot 52 (duet multifamily units) require Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval (see SHMC section 17.40.030.) and development of Lot 52 is required to meet the minimum gross density on the project site. Based on this, the City is following up on past requests for additional information as to the development of the multifamily parcel (and preferably Use Permit and Design Review applications) which provide more project specifics, and detail how the future development will comply with the requirements of the Medium Density Residential zoning and development standards.1 The City had plainly been requesting this information for a considerable time. The September 27, 2018, Comment Letter indicated that the Applicant had provided a draft Affordable Housing agreement that failed to meet the City’s standards. By February 2020, the Applicant had offered 1 Available at: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/ project/3486/hunter_subdivision_issues_letter-april_2018.pdf Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

to enter into an Affordable Housing and Regulatory Agreement “in conjunction with the approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map.” The City soundly rejected the plan as inconsistent with inclusionary housing principles in its Notification of Final Unresolved Issues and Questions.2 It also clearly called out the need for a use permit for the multifamily development:

With 16.92 acres and a total of 87 units, the overall project density is 5.14 units per acre. The site is located within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) General Plan designation with a density range of 5.1 to 16 units per acre. The site is in the MR Zoning District that permits single family residences and Accessory Dwelling Units. Residential condominium projects, attached duplex or triplex units are permitted in the MDR District subject to the Approval of a Conditional Use Permit in each case. Based on your current subdivision plan, you should concurrently submit a Conditional Use Permit application.
(Id. Emphasis added.) The Applicant has ignored this direction for years.

Staff’s sole response is to argue the current version of the Government Code Section 65589.5(j), regarding the timing and contents of a response to a housing project application, which did not exist at the time of the project’s application, post hoc controls the project. However, statutes do not generally apply retroactively,3 and a plain reading of the timelines in Section 65589.5(j)(2) shows that applying that section retroactively to a prior application would have immediately made all actions on the Project – and every other similar project – suddenly untimely. This interpretation is unreasonable, and we are unable to locate any authority that would support Staff’s position. Indeed, the First District Court of Appeal recently found directly to the contrary in connection with another amendment to the Housing Development code. Such amendments are not retroactive unless explicitly stated in the legislation.4 Section 65589.5(j)(2) is thus inapplicable and is not a basis to ignore the City’s code.

The other applications required for the Project – an affordable housing agreement and a use permit for multifamily development – are for other discretionary approvals. They are required by code and recognized in the EIR. They are not precluded by the legal “completeness” (or not) of the tentative map application itself – they are distinct legally mandated discretionary applications.
2 Available at: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/ project/3486/02-20-2020_unresolved_issues_and_questions_hunter-final-c2.pdf 3 “Generally, statutes operate prospectively only.” Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 277, 307 [277 Cal.Rptr.3d 649, 671, 63 Cal.App.5th 277, 307] (quoting cases). “[A] statute may be applied retroactively only if it contains express language of retroactivity or if other sources provide a clear and unavoidable implication that the Legislature intended retroactive application.” Id. (quoting cases.)
4 Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 277, 307 [277 Cal.Rptr.3d 649, 671, 63 Cal.App.5th 277, 307], reh'g denied (May 19, 2021), review denied (July 28, 2021.) Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

And in any event, requiring additional supporting and clarifying information after a completeness determination is routine and allowed by the Permit Streamlining Act. The Permit Streamlining Act specifically contemplates the requirement for additional information following a completeness determination, and states specifically that “[t]he agency may, in the course of processing the application, request the applicant to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information required for the application” and that a completeness determination “shall not be construed as limiting the ability of a public agency to request and obtain information which may be needed in order to comply with [CEQA].”5 Indeed, the entirety of the EIR process occurred after the completeness determination was made. The suggestion that additional information on the planned “design and improvement”6 of Lot 52 – which the Council is required to review and approve in connection with the subdivision – cannot be required after the completeness determination is specious.

The City needs to follow its own law and reject the piecemeal attempt at approval of only a part of the Project. Neither the Permit Streamlining Act nor the subsequent amendments to the Housing Accountability Act alter this; it is a failure to submit all of the information necessary to analyze the project as a whole, which the City’s Subdivision Code – and CEQA – require to be considered and analyzed collectively.

Failure to proceed as required by law is an abuse of discretion.7 The Required Findings Cannot Be Made
Without a complete collection of the required discretionary approvals, the City simply cannot make the required findings for approval. The City Council must make two findings to approve a tentative map:

1. That the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable provisions of this code; and

2. Except for condominium conversion projects where no new structures are added, that the design of the proposed subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as described in the state Subdivision Map Act and any guidelines promulgated by the city council. (SHMC § 16.16.080 (emphasis added.))
Put simply, one must know the entirety of what a subdivision project is in order to properly approve it. The City must approve not just the lots, but the “provisions for [their] design and 5 Cal. Gov. C. § 65944(a), (c).
6 SHMC § 16.16.080.
7 Cal. C. Civ. P. 1094.5; see, e.g., No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 88 [118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 47, 529 P.2d 66, 79], supplemented (1975) 13 Cal.3d 486 [119 Cal.Rptr. 216, 531 P.2d 784].

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

improvement.”8 The applicant continues to evade submission of those details for the most important component of the project.

The application seeks approval of 51 single family lots, and one multi-family lot with purportedly 25 units. That multi-family lot requires separate consideration and approval, as multi-family housing is a conditional use.9 Conversely, as of this moment in time, the use indicated for Lot 52, the multi-family parcel, is not allowed.10 The applicant thus is seeking to ram through its singlefamily lots without any analysis or consideration of the “design and improvement” of the multifamily portion of the project.

Doing so will severely restrict the City’s ability to shape the critical affordable housing that the property has the possibility to provide. If the tentative map is approved without consideration of all of the necessary approvals, it eliminates the ability to require a larger affordable housing component. It also locks the City into directly violating the General Plan, as Lot 52 is entirely planted with vineyards. (Contra 1993 General Plan CD 4.3.5 (4.3.5 “Require future residential development to conform to the pattern and density of older, neighboring areas of town in order to complement existing town character and ensure that densities are high enough to protect against unnecessary incursion into vineyard agricultural areas.”) Thus, directly contrary to the General Plan’s policy of designing projects to avoid removal of vineyard, the City will be left with no choice than to approve the vineyard removal for the only multi-family parcel that is part of – and required by – the project to meet the minimum density requirements of the zoning code.

The property has been described as a key component of the City’s housing plans. If that is to be true, it needs to be thoroughly and properly vetted. Rushing through an improper approval of a single-family home subdivision will have irreversible deleterious impacts on the City that will persist long after the current Council is out of office. We agree with and echo the letter from Our Town St. Helena: the discriminatory and inadequate cramming of a small multi-family development into an existing vineyard to make way for 51 luxury, likely-second homes is wholly inappropriate and contrary to the City’s urgent needs for affordable housing. It is indeed contrary to law.

Moreover, there is no evidence that the project, which depends on 11 ADUs to purportedly meet the minimum density requirements, would achieve that threshold. Studies show that only approximately half of ADUs are used as rental units.11 Thus, without deed restrictions requiring the rental of the ADUs, and conditions requiring minimum rental income and related fees, the ADUs are not meaningful additions to the City’s housing stock or the required density. But again, 8 Id.
9 10 The applicant initially submitted a map with no development shown in Lot 52 at all. (See our Letter of October 31, 2022)
11 UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California’s ADU Owners, (April 22, 2021), available at: https://www.aducalifornia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/Implementing-the-Backyard-Revolution.pdf.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

the applicant has failed to submit the mandated Affordable Housing Agreement that might inform whether such conditions could or would be met.

As discussed further below, the project is inconsistent with the General Plan for a host of reasons, including but not limited to its widespread ignorance of the applicable 1993 General Plan policies, impacts on traffic, public safety, destruction of vineyard, and water usage.

But, more basically, as a result of the failure to submit the multi-family use permit application and design, there is no evidence in the record to support the required second finding on passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. There is no submitted design for Lot 52, the multifamily housing portion of the project. Although the staff report indicates that some of the singlefamily homes meet the requirement for passive or natural heating or cooling, there is no evidence that the multi-family homes will.

Put indelicately, on the current record the only finding favorable to the project the City Council could make is that it does not care whether the residents of the purportedly affordable portion of the development have had their interests in passive or natural heating or cooling attended to.

And it must make this finding now, based on evidence in the record now – not simply condition future compliance.

As the second required finding cannot be made, the Project must be rejected. The Council can reach this conclusion now without further need to wade through the lengthy issue of General Plan consistency – or lack thereof.

General Plan Inconsistencies
Returning to the larger issue of the first required finding for approval, the woeful attempt in the General Plan consistency analysis provided with the agenda to show the project is consistent with the General Plan firmly demonstrates the opposite.12 For example, and by no means exhaustive, the provided General Plan consistency analysis mentions only three of the dozens of applicable 1993 General Plan Land Use and Growth Management Elements.

Among those “LU” policies the analysis omits are the following:

2.6.5 Encourage the continuation of agricultural and low-intensity uses adjacent to the Urban Limit Line.

2.6.14 Encourage a mix of housing types and price ranges to allow choice for current and future generations of St. Helenans.

2.6.17 Minimize situations where new residential development will block public view of surrounding vineyards
12 As the Project is subject to the 1993 General Plan, all references herein are to that version of the General Plan unless otherwise stated.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

2.6.20 Encourage the subdivision and development of larger parcels (3 acres or more) as "planned unit developments" to ensure a more comprehensive and creative approach to planning the development as a single unit The "planned unit development" approach provides developers with greater design flexibility while ensuring the City adequate design review. The intent is to create developments that complement existing community character.

The City will favor planned unit developments that provide generous amounts of open space, covered parking, the separation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic, and on larger tracts, a variety of housing types: single-family detached, duplex, and multi-family dwellings, in one and two-story structures.

2.6.24 Require residential developers to contribute toward the provision of community facilities and services (e.g., recreation facilities and programs, educational facilities, traffic and transportation facilities and services) consistent with State law requiring a nexus between project impacts and required mitigation.

The consistency analysis ignores these elements because the Project ignores them.

The 1993 General Plan Community Design Element reflects a general rejection of ‘suburbanization’ of the City. In response to the nature of the recent development of the time, the 1993 General Plan, 4.2 Community Form and Character Issues, provided:

Residents are clearly concerned that the special character of St. Helena is being lost through new development and growth. Although the last ten years have seen little new development, residents perceive a continuing loss of character and values. In part, this perception is the result of the growth of the valley in general as a tourism destination, and the resultant traffic congestion and impact on local serving businesses. However, it is also the result of the design and planning of new development, that is more suburban in nature than the historic pattern in town.

Put plainly: the City looked at the then-recent development on the East side, said ‘we don’t like it’, and directed a return to the classic design of the West side of town.

Again, the General Plan consistency analysis wholly fails to comport the project to the applicable Community Design General Plan policies. It ignores numerous applicable policies, while addressing only a handful of the Community Design elements. Even then, the policies it does address show the project is directly at odds with the General Plan. For example, the consistency analysis states the following:

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

4.3.5 Require future residential development
to conform to the pattern and density of
older, neighboring areas of town in order to
complement existing town character and
ensure that densities are high enough to
protect against unnecessary incursion into
vineyard agricultural areas.

The proposed subdivision is consistent with
the density requirements of the site’s General
Plan land use designation.

Obviously, the explanation does not match the element. Instead of comporting the design to the older areas of town to avoid incursion into vineyard agriculture, the project merely purportedly meets the bare minimum density by squeezing in one dense parcel. The consistency analysis ignores the remainder of the element, which is unmet.

The next element similarly fails the straight-faced test:

4.4.1 Use the grid pattern of street layout as
the template for future developing areas.

Streets should be straight, should meet at
right angles, and cul-de-sacs and a suburban
pattern should be avoided.

The proposed street layout follows a grid
pattern as much as possible, given the site’s
shape and the location of adjacent connecting
streets. One cul-de-sac is included in the
proposed subdivision where no other street
pattern is feasible.

To be clear, this is what the General Plan depicts as desired vs. not:

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

(General Plan 4.4 at 4-16.)
In short, the City considered whether it wanted a project in the future exactly like that proposed, and rejected it. The excuse that the project meets the grid pattern as much as possible is incredible. Offsetting ‘Street A’ into an awkward intersection into a prototypical subdivision is directly contrary to the element. The design is also inconsistent with Element 4.6.2, which prohibits cul-de-sacs to block views of vineyards.

The next General Plan element analyzed, 4.4.2, the ability to continue Adams Street to Silverado Trail, also fails. The consistency analysis wrongly states that the project “will complete the planned roadway system.” But the planned roadway system extends Adams Street to Silverado Trail. The project, on the other hand, obstructs a clear path to the east, and there is no evidence that construction of a public street on the existing levee is technically feasible nor safe. The levee was not designed to carry traffic, and there is no evidence that Adams Street can feasibly be extended if the project is constructed as proposed. Although the General Plan consistency analysis later acknowledges Transportation Element 5.3.2, which calls for extension of Adams to Silverado Trail, it does not consider how the project is consistent or inconsistent with the plan.13 There is no evidence that the project is anything other than a complete obstacle to completion of the road network’s second access to Silverado Trail. 13 The analysis also ignores related Public Health and Safety element 8.2.11: “Encourage and support regional efforts to displace motor vehicles off State Route 29 and onto alternative modes of transit.” Failure to address access to Silverado Trail ignores this policy.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

Returning to the offered 1993 Consistency Analysis, the next element analyzed again belies the consistency:

4.5.1 The sense of a strong connection to the
surrounding agricultural open space and
hillsides must be preserved in the future.

Views of vineyard, hillsides, creeks and major
landscape features should be maintained.

Views of the vineyards to the north of the
proposed subdivision are currently available
from the levee road, which will not be
affected by the proposed project.

The “sense of a strong connection” is plainly destroyed by the Project. The attempt at consistency is quite literally to tell residents they should walk around the Project and look the other direction.

And similarly, the next element analyzed again shows the project wholly at odds with the General Plan:

4.7.3 The new eastern entry via the Adams
extension should be planned to maximize
open space and vineyard views. Where
possible, vineyards should be maintained up
to the road edge. Residential development
should front on the road with sufficient lot
depth to allow a generous setback for sound
and privacy. Large specimen street trees
should be planted in residential areas to
mitigate the scale of the street and encourage
pedestrian and bicycle movement.

The proposed project extends Adams Street
to connect with the northward extension of
Starr Avenue, but does not otherwise affect
the layout or design of the future extension of
Adams Street.

The General Plan thus dictates residential development should front on Adams Street, not an oddly-adjacent ‘Street A’. The future extension of Adams Street would plainly not front on residential developments, but instead would be adjacent to a feeder road. Instead of large yards facing Adams Street and preserving vineyards, the project results in the exact opposite – multiple roads created by removing vineyards.

This is also, for example, directly contrary to General Plan policy CD 4.3.26:

Encourage residential building siting and design that is similar to that found in the older neighborhoods in town. In these areas consistent setbacks, porches and generously landscaped front yards add to community enjoyment by all. Restrict location of driveways and garages to minimize their visual impact on the street.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

In short, this Project by no means meets the applicable General Plan’s Land Use and Community Design elements.

It also fails to grapple with the most basic General Plan issue that stalled the project previously:
traffic. Nearly a decade ago, it was identified that improvements were needed to the Silverado Trail/Pope Street intersection. The most recent traffic study still states that improvements to the intersection are necessary, and that the project will add traffic to that intersection to such an extent that in a short time, traffic will be backed up past the new City Hall. Yet, no mitigation whatsoever has been provided to account for these significant impacts on quality of life.

This violates the General Plan Traffic elements, including 5.4.1 and 5.4.2, which direct the City to attempt to maintain tolerable levels of service (at least LOS C) at the City’s intersections.

More critically, the Project is inconsistent with the most important elements of the General Plan – those related to Public Health and Safety. Countless commenters have already opined that the Project is unsafe both to the current residents and the future residents. Those issues include that the project is flood prone, behind an uncertified levee with evidence of deficient maintenance. It is also a necessary firebreak that actually functioned as such in the 2020 fire. The proposed emergency access via the levee maintenance road is not what the levee was designed for and there is no evidence that using the levee for evacuation will be consistent with the long-term structural stability of the levee. Adding substantial population without addressing other transportation issues is a clear and imminent risk to the health and safety of the City’s existing residents.

Meanwhile, the consistency analysis analyzed only two of the extensive list of Public Health & Safety elements of the General Plan. Of the two chosen, one is misleading:

8.5.7 Ensure that all streets and roads are
adequate in terms of width, turning radius,
and grade to facilitate access by City
firefighting apparatus, and to provide
alternative emergency ingress and egress.

The proposed subdivision has been reviewed
by the Public Works and Fire departments for
consistency with City roadway standards
The staff report reveals that there actually was no standard for intersection design in the City’s standards. Thus, despite the intersection of Adams Street/Starr/Street A being clearly awkward and dangerous (and contrary to design standards that could have been referenced such as those by Napa County or CalTrans), the consistency analysis simply states that the subdivision ‘has been reviewed.’ It has not been found safe or adequate. And again, access depends on the levee access road that is not designed for that use.

But most significantly, the consistency analysis ignores numerous other elements that are highly relevant to the Project, and with which it is in conflict. Among the 1993 General Plan Public Health & Safety elements that are unaddressed and unmet are numerous elements discouraging Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

construction within Flood Hazard Areas. Those Guiding Policies in Section 8.6 clearly discourage development subject to flood risk:

8.6.1 Prohibit the introduction of intensive urban development into designated Flood Hazard Areas.

8.6.2 Uses vulnerable to floods, including public facilities and infrastructure, shall be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction.

8.6.3 Prohibit the construction of structures or flood barriers which would unnaturally divert flood waters or would increase flood hazards in other areas.

8.6.4 Require a grading permit for any filling, grading, or dredging that may increase potential for flood damage.

8.6.5 Restrict the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers which help accommodate or channel flood waters.

8.6.6 Prohibit the siting of uses within Flood Hazard Areas that could result in health and safety hazards due to the release of chemicals or other substances as a result of inundation or erosion.

8.6.7 Encourage the use of Flood Hazard Areas within new development areas for open space and recreation uses, including parks and greenbelts.

8.6.8 Ensure that any new development that is allowed within the floodplain is constructed so that the lowest floor elevation is at least one foot above the 100- year flood level.

Development exposed to flood risk is plainly discouraged. Moreover, implementing policy 8.6.11 “Require[s] developers with land adjacent to the Napa River to construct or contribute a fair share toward the construction of necessary flood control improvements.” As has been widely discussed by earlier commenters, the project places the entire development at risk of flooding. The staff report acknowledges the flood risk, but asserts it to be of a 200-year flood, and thus not a “Flood Hazard Area.” Even assuming that to be true,14 though less likely than a 100-year flood (but only by half), the risk to life and property remains and the potential ruinous financial liability to the City remains unaddressed. Indeed, the City’s counsel has provided a legal analysis stating that the City could be held liable for flood damage, particularly if the levee is not adequately maintained. As such, compliance with General Plan policy 8.6.11 would suggest that at a minimum the Project be conditioned to indemnify the City from that potential liability via a bond for the replacement costs of the Project, and to be responsible for the costs of maintaining the necessary flood control improvements.
14 There is considerable inconsistency in the record about the protection level afforded by the levee. We do note the FAQ provided as attachment 23 to the agenda misstates the 500 year flood risk as 0.02% annually. It should read

0.2%.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

Finally, the Project conflicts with numerous Public Facilities and Services and Parks and Recreation policies. Among those is PF 9.4.6 which requires “All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage.” However, the Project proposes to develop portions of the site subject to flood risk, and potentially places the City at ruinous financial risk as a result.

Thus, for all of the above reasons, and those stated by the numerous other commenters, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan and the Council cannot make the required finding of consistency.

Findings For Denial
Pursuant to SHMC § 16.16.080(D), the City Council:
may deny approval of the tentative map on any grounds provided by the law including, without limitation, a finding that the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in, or add to, violation of existing requirements prescribed by a state regional water quality control board. A tentative map shall be denied if any of the following findings are made:

1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the general plan, applicable specific plans, or other applicable provisions of this code;

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the general plan, applicable specific plans, or other applicable provisions of this code;

3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development;

4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development;

5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the planning commission may approve such a tentative map if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of CEQA that specific economic, social or other consideration make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report;

6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems;
Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the city council may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that those will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and no authority is granted to the planning commission to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision;

8. That all requirements of the California Environment Quality Act and the rules and procedures adopted by the city council pursuant thereto have not been met;

9. That the applicant has failed to submit complete or adequate information;

10. Subject to Section 66474.4 of the state Subdivision Map Act, that the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (commencing with Section 51200 of the Government Code) and that the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would be too small to sustain their agricultural use.
(Emphasis added.) As described above, and by countless other commenters, numerous of these findings can be made here. They include that:
 The proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan as discussed above.  The design or improvement is not consistent with the General Plan as discussed above.  The site is not physically suited for the proposed development as discussed above, particularly in regards to its location adjacent to the levee and removal of vineyard firebreaks.
 The site is not suited for the proposed density due to its location adjacent to the levee and lack of development of the road network, existing parking shortcomings, and removal of vineyard firebreaks.
 Substantial unmitigated environmental impacts persist and no overriding considerations justify those impacts, including impacts on groundwater, GHGs, aesthetics, and others as further discussed in our accompanying letter.
 The EIR does not comply with CEQA as discussed in our accompanying letter.  The Applicant has failed to provide necessary information as discussed above.

Agenda Item #6.1.

April 30, 2023

Conclusion
The City Council members have a duty to the citizens that elected them to protect the City from adverse interests. It must manage the City consistent with the General Plan and the Municipal Code. This project violates both, and the Council should do its duty and protect the voters from this proposed violation of their collective will.

Sincerely,

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC
Joshua S. Devore
cc: City Attorney Ethan Walsh: [email protected]
City Clerk Cindy Tzafopoulos: [email protected] Agenda Item #6.1.

-1-
Hunter Subdivision project
Responses to April 30, 2023 Comments of Joshua S. Devore Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040
Comment #1
Commenter contends that the May 1, 2023, public hearing should have been rescheduled because the Planning Commission did not file a report and recommendation with the City Council prior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map, as required by St. Helena Municipal Code Sections 16.16.060 and .070.

Response #1
The form of the required Planning Commission report and recommendation is the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission at its April 7, 2023, meeting. Neither the City’s municipal code nor the provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act that Sections 16.16.060 and .070 are modeled after require a particular form for that report. The Planning Commission resolution contains the Planning Commission’s recommendation, it was available prior to the Council hearing date being set, and was included in the materials provided for the May 1 Council hearing. The City complied with Sections 16.16.060 and 16.16.070 and there was no need to reschedule the May 1 hearing.

Comment #2
Commenter again argues that the applicant was required to concurrently submit all other applications for discretionary permits that would eventually be required for the development of the proposed subdivision. Commenter further argues that the City is not required to comply with Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(2), because to do so would require retroactive application of that statutory requirement, which was enacted after the Hunter Subdivision application was deemed complete.

Response #2
The City has explained in detail in prior reports that Section 65589.5(j)(2) limits the City’s ability to deny an application for a housing development project for failure to comply with certain objective requirements after the project application is deemed complete. The City does believe that the Hunter Subdivision project is subject to Section 65589.5(j)(2) (which was adopted over five years ago), and the City is not applying this requirement retroactively in this instance. This issue, including an explanation of why the City is not applying this requirement retroactively, is addressed further in Section 2 of the letter from Daniel Golub and William Sterling (the applicant’s attorneys) to City Council dated May 1, 2023 (the “Golub/Sterling letter”). City staff agrees with the legal analysis contained in Section 2 of that letter, and refers readers to that letter for further explanation as to why it is not appropriate to deny the Hunter Subdivision based on the reasons set forth in Comment #2 of Commenter’s letter.

Agenda Item #6.1.

-2-
Comment #3
Commenter argues in his third comment that the City cannot make the findings required for approval of a tentative map pursuant to Section 16.16.080. Commenter first argues that the City Council cannot make the finding of consistency with the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance because the City Council is not considering the other future approvals that will be required for ultimate development of the proposed subdivision. Secondly, Commenter argues that the City Council has not made findings that the design of the multifamily development provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision.

Response #3
Response #2 and the Golub/Sterling letter address why the City is considering this tentative map separate from the future approvals required for development of the property. It is certainly possible and not uncommon for a City Council to evaluate a tentative subdivision map on its own to determine consistency with the City’s General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. City staff has provided the reasons why this proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance in detail as part of the agenda materials. In his letter the Commenter argues that Lot 52 should not be developed with multifamily units because it is currently planted with vineyards, and that the development would not meet the density or affordability requirements without inclusion of the multifamily units. As discussed in the staff materials provided, this property, including Lot 52, is designated and zoned for residential use, and it would be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan or Zoning to prohibit the development of this property for residential purposes.

The Commenter also argues that the proposed accessory dwelling units should not be counted towards the minimum density for the overall project unless there are deed restrictions requiring that the accessory dwelling units be rented. However, the City’s Zoning Code explicitly allows that accessory dwelling units may be counted toward minimum density in the Medium Density Residential (MR) Zoning District, and there are not requirements for specific deed restrictions in order for these units to be counted toward minimum density. (SHMC §17.40.060(E)(3).)
Finally, Commenter argues that the City Council cannot approve the tentative subdivision map because there is no evidence that the multifamily units will be constructed in a manner that provides for natural heating or cooling. The requirement to provide for natural heating and cooling opportunities, to the extent feasible, is focused on configuration and design of the subdivision, not construction of the buildings on future lots. As staff previously outlined in the staff materials for the Planning Commission hearing and May 1 Council hearing, the Subdivision Map Act provides examples of natural heating and cooling opportunities. These include design of lot size and configuration to permit orientation of structures to allow for southern exposure, and/or to take advantage of shade or prevailing breezes. This requirement does not pertain to the future construction on the lots created, and staff has addressed how the configuration of the subdivision provides for natural heating and cooling through configuration of the subdivision, to the extent feasible.

Agenda Item #6.1.

-3-
Most importantly, with all of Commenter’s arguments, it is important to recall the standard that applies to the City Council in reviewing this proposed subdivision. As set forth in Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1), the City may only deny the project if it finds, based on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record that (1) the project would have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved, and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval on the condition that it be developed at a lower density. Commenter does not provide evidence that the alleged inconsistencies with the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance rise to the level of a “specific adverse impact” as defined in Section 65589.5(j)(1), and therefore, even if these inconsistencies did exist, they are not sufficient grounds to deny the application for the tentative subdivision map.

Comment #4
Commenter makes numerous arguments as to why he believes the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.

Response #4
These arguments are also addressed in the Golub/Sterling letter. Please refer to Section 3 of the Golub/Sterling letter for an explanation of why Commenter’s arguments do not serve as an appropriate basis for denial of the proposed subdivision.

Agenda Item #6.1.

-1-
Hunter Subdivision project
Responses to April 30, 2023 Comments of Joshua S. Devore Comment #1
Commenter contends that there is no operating well on the project site and asserts that the well has not been operating for some time, rendering it abandoned. Commenter then states that “the required baseline of “existing” water use on the parcel is zero.” Commenter further asserts that the City is using historical well production data to provide a hypothetical baseline with regard to the capacity of the project’s on-site well.

Response #1
Substantial evidence in the EIR including the pump test (Draft EIR Appendix L, “Well Capacity Study, September 9, 2021”) , and acknowledged by the Commenter, confirms that the on-site well is operational. Further, Commenter provides no evidence that the well is abandoned.

Indeed, the original application for the project, filed with the City in 2010, not only mentions the then-current use by the City of water from the on-site well, but also expressly calls for the use of the on-site well to provide landscaping water for the project. Accordingly, the record confirms the ongoing intent to continue use of the legally permitted on-site well.

Finally, Commenter incorrectly asserts that the EIR employed a hypothetical baselines of water use based on historic production of the on-site well. As review of the EIR confirms that this is not the case. The EIR states, at page 3.13-31, that the project’s “estimated indoor water demand is 19.88 acre-feet per year at completion during normal water years (see Table 3.13-10).

The Proposed project’s landscape irrigation demand would account for 17.16 acre-feet per year.” Given this, the EIR concludes that that project’s “entire water demand [is] 37.04 acre-feet per year….” Accordingly, the EIR evaluated the project’s entire water demand as new, and thus was employing a baseline of zero water use.

Comment #2
Commenter asserts that the City should update its Well Capacity Study Memorandum “to comply with the revised substantially reduced allocation limit” under Napa County policy as, in his opinion, Napa County’s policy applies to the project’s on-site well.

Response #2
This comment is based on an apparent misunderstanding of County’s current policy regarding wells. The existing well on project site, which was originally permitted in 1976, remains operable (the well was once referenced in the EIR as “inoperable” because it was not in use at the time, but it was subsequently verified in the 2021 test of the well to be operable and capable of meeting projected needs).

Agenda Item #6.1.

-2-
Because the well has an existing permit that, to the City’s current knowledge, does not require modification, and because no increase in well use over historic levels is proposed, the evidence before the City does not suggest that a new well permit is required by Napa County.

Giving this, the pumping limitations cited in the comment (which affect only new wells, or modified wells with new permits) would not apply. Further, as documented in detail in the EIR and in the proposed approval documents, the City’s Water Neutrality Ordinance applies to the project.

Comment #3
Commenter states that the water drawn from the project’s on-site well may be drawing from the same basin that supplies the City’s wells, and contends that the EIR should have included “an analysis of well interference.” Commenter asserts that the on-site well is drawing from the same basin as the City’s wells, and that “the project’s water neutrality analysis should have included the entirety of the project’s water use, without any exclusion for the well.” Commenter also cites a September 27, 2018 Second Notice of Identified Issues Letter sent to the applicant by the City as specifically requiring a well interference analysis.

Response #3
The FEIR considers the potential impact of the existing Hunter groundwater well on the Napa Valley Subbasin as a whole. This consideration included the Stonebridge Well (SBW) field.

The FEIR acknowledges that the Hunter well is an existing facility and does not represent a new demand on the Subbasin. The FEIR also acknowledges that the City does not rely exclusively on the SBW facility for its water supply. The City also sources drinking water from Bell Canyon Reservoir and City of Napa. Substantial evidence in the FEIR reflects that these sources are hydraulically independent of the Napa Valley Subbasin and reduce the City's dependence on SBW.

This is confirmed by the 2021 Well Capacity Study, which noted that, “During the 24-hour pumping test, depth to groundwater was steady at 23 feet below ground surface (about 192 feet above sea level).” Given that there was no drawdown of groundwater levels at the site of the well itself, it can be concluded that use of the well—particularly on an intermittent basis—would not cause a drawdown of water levels at the SBW facility.

Since the project will source its outdoor and domestic water need from such hydraulically independent water sources, the City appropriately did not the impact of the Hunter Development on other, independent, water sources.

Staff’s opinion is that the 2021 Well Capacity Study resolves the issue of the well interference study discussed in the September 27, 2018 letter. As discussed above, the 2021 Well Capacity Study found no drawdown of water in the well under constant pumpting.

Agenda Item #6.1.

-3-
Comment #4
Comment asserts that, due to its reliance on water-saving measures from February 2017, the EIR’s Water Neutral Report must be updated to account for current conditions.

Response #4
This comment does not raise new information but instead reiterates known risks related to groundwater availability during drought conditions. This potential risk and the measures imposed to avoid and reduce potentially significant impacts with regard to the project’s use of water are discussed at length in the FEIR.

Comment #5
Commenter opines that the EIR wrongly concludes that is no mitigation available to address the project’s significant impacts relating to Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”). Commenter states that improvements to the City’s street network would lessen project’s trips – particularly connection of Adams to Silverado Trail – and so should be required as mitigation for the project’s VMT impacts.

Response #5
As required by CEQA the EIR seeks to identify feasible mitigation measures. The connection of Adams Street to Silverado Trail, via a new bridge over the Napa River, is a multimillion-dollar project. This improvement, and similar improvements raised by the Commenter, are not feasible mitigation measures because a public agency cannot require mitigation that does not bear a reasonable relationship to the burden created by the development. (See Dolan v City of Tigard (1994) 512 US 374; Nollan v California Coastal Comm'n (1987) 483 US at 835 n4.) In Dolan, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a “rough proportionality” standard for the relationship between a project's impacts and a dedication requirement imposed by the approving agency. Based on an individualized determination relating to the project, the City would have to demonstrate that both the nature and extent of the required dedication, in this case the multi-million dollar off-site improvements proposed by Commenter, are reasonably related to the impact of the proposed project.

Further, the court in Alliance for Responsible Planning v Taylor (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1085, applied the Nollan/Dolan test in holding that requiring new development to pay fees to mitigate cumulative traffic was unconstitutional. The court found the measure violated the Nollan/Dolan rough-proportionality test because it required a developer to construct improvements, as would be the case here if the City attempt to impose the mitigation measures recommended by the Commenter, would exceed the extent of the development’s own impact. Like any government exaction or condition of approval, a mitigation measure cannot violate state or federal constitutional standards. This limitation is explicitly stated in CEQA Guidelines sections 15041(a) and 15126.4(a)(4).

Agenda Item #6.1.

-4-
Finally, by providing a new, more convenient travel route between St Helena and local and regional destinations, construction of the new Adams Street connection to Silverado Trail could itself create new VMT by encouraging additional vehicle travel. This potential impact will need to be addressed at the time the City is considering approval of such a project, but is at this time speculative and beyond the scope of the EIR for the Hunter project.

Comment # 6
Commenter contends that the EIR uses an Affordable Housing percentage of 28.73% in its traffic analysis, when there is no affordable housing in the project. Further Commenter stated that the EIR fails to use reasonable assumptions for the project, substantially undercounts the expected traffic increase, and does not comport its analysis with the description or stated intended use of the project.

Response # 6
As noted in the EIR and in the proposed conditions of approval for the Tentative Map, the proposed project will be required to comply with the City’s inclusionary housing regulations, and to obtain an approved Affordable Housing Agreement before the map can be recorded. The project will, in fact, include affordable housing as required by the St Helena Municipal Code, which for a project of the size proposed requires that 20 percent of units be affordable. The “28.73%” figure is apparently derived from a statement in the Project Description in the Draft EIR that, “The Proposed Project applicant has proposed to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City for the 25 multi-family units.” This overstates the 20 percent requirement, which for the 76 single-family and multi-family units would be 15 units.

The trip generation rates were calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). This manual provides substantial evidence supporting the EIR’s estimations of vehicle trips for proposed development projects. The project’s trip generation estimates and distribution patterns were reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer for use in the traffic impact analysis (TIA).

Trip generation is determined by housing type, rather than affordability, per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017. Therefore, as described in Section 3.1 of the Traffic Impact Study, Hunter Subdivision (April 2021), trip generation for the proposed project is based on single-family detached housing (ITE Code 210) and Multifamily Housing, Low Rise (ITE Code 220).

Comment # 7
Commenter states that idling vehicles are a substantial contributor to GHG emissions and opines that the EIR fails to analyze the significant impact of idling vehicles resulting from the project sitting in the unmitigated traffic it will create. Specifically, Commenter objects to what he states is the allocation of 4 AM Peak Hour outbound trips for the 11 Accessory Dwelling Units and claims that the 87 new units will result in more than two people driving their children to school by crossing Main at Adams, and more than one person picking children. He opines that “reasonable assumptions would suggest the affordable and multi-family units to lead to more trips Agenda Item #6.1.

-5-
for the residents of those units given the nature of the local workforce.” Further, Commenter objects to the use of standard assumptions given the “unique nature of the Napa Valley economy and local transportation demands.”
Response #8
Commenter does not provide any substantial evidence to support his non-expert opinion questioning the EIR’s analysis of traffic. The EIR’s analysis is supported by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017) and by the review of the City’s Traffic Engineer.

Comment #9
Commenter asserts that improvements to Silverado Trail and to Pope Street and its bridge over the Napa River are necessary and objects to the City’s determination that the project applicant cannot be required to construct these improvements individually. Commenter contends that the necessary improvements – “… especially connection of Adams to Silverado Trail, meet the Nollan/Dolan essential nexus and rough proportionality tests given that the improvement is necessarily located on, and immediately adjacent to, a very large-scale project.” Response # 9
The Commenter’s legal opinion that the City can require the project applicant to construct improvements to the Silverado Trail and Pope Street is just that, legal opinion. As discussed in Response to Comment #5, the City has determined that the Commenter’s recommended improvements are legally infeasible.

Comment #10
Commenter opines that the City cannot adopt a statement of overriding considerations because the project’s VMT impacts are not significant and unavoidable but, in his opinion, can be addressed via requirement of improvements to Silverado Trail/Pope Street and the connection of Adams Street to Silverado Trail.

Response #10
Commenter’s opinion regarding the legal feasibility of requiring the project applicant to make improvements to Silverado Trail/Pope Street and the connection of Adams Street to Silverado Trail are addressed in Response to Comment #9 above. The City has determined that the project’s VMT impacts are not legally feasibly mitigatable and thus remain significant and unavoidable. Please See Responses to Comment #5. CEQA provides that lead agencies must weigh a proposed project’s benefits against its unavoidable environmental risks and may find the adverse impacts “acceptable” if the benefits outweigh those effects. (Public Resources Code §21081(b); CEQA Guidelines §15093(a).) The City Council will undertake such a consideration at its hearing on the EIR and project.

Agenda Item #6.1.

-6-
Comment #11
Commenter asserts that the existing vineyard on the property is “crucial firebreak” and objects to that City’s position that project is not near a SRA or VHFHSZ because the project “immediately adjacent to the VHFHSZ.” The Comment opines that the project “must be revised and conditioned to retain a firebreak between the new development and existing development by leaving the existing vineyard intact.”
Response #11
As the City has previously informed Commenter, the project site does not meet the definition of a “firebreak,” which is an obstacle to the spread of fire, such as a strip of open space in a forest. The Hunter Property in its current state does not provide an obstacle to fire-spread; in fact just the opposite. The area is under constant scrutiny during weed abatement and fire seasons to reduce the potential for the spread of fire across the site.

Residential homes, such as the proposed project, constructed in accordance with California Fire Code requirements (fire resistant building materials, fire sprinkler systems, etc.) do not constitute a significant fire threat. Residential fires are much easier to contain than grass and vegetation wildfires.

Finally, Commenter is incorrect that the project is “immediately adjacent to the VHFHSZ.” The project site and the surrounding land uses are located within an area mapped as “NonVHFHSZ” under the Local Responsibility Area map by CAL FIRE (CalFire 2019). The VHFHSZ is across the Napa River from the project site – neither immediate nor adjacent.

Comment #12
The Commenter assert that “without connection of Adams Street to Silverado Trail and the mitigation of the Silverado Trail/Pope Street intersection conditions,” the project “lacks safe emergency access and egress and would worsen existing emergency evacuation times for residents of the City.”
Response # 12
Please see Final EIR Master Response 1 for a detailed discussion of the EIR’s analysis of emergency access issues.

Comment # 13
Commenter contends that the project “will obstruct emergency access for existing residents, particularly those in Vineyard Valley” and states that the “levee maintenance road is [not] a suitable evacuation road for the project” because it not 30-feet wide and paved with two feet of shoulders. Commenter asserts that [t]o the extent the levee maintenance road is a planned emergency access route for the project, it must be improved to meet the City’s Fire Access Road standards as part of the project.”
Agenda Item #6.1.

-7-
Response # 13
As stated in the Final EIR:

Based on the results of the evacuation drill, the St. Helena Police Department has concluded that any additional traffic from the Proposed project would not significantly impact the ability of Vineyard Valley residents to safely evacuate the development in the event of an emergency. The Police Department also concluded that the proposed extension of Starr Avenue to Adams Street will help facilitate future evacuations by providing additional roadway capacity and additional routing options for emergency traffic (J.Tharp September 2021). If, for some reason, the levee maintenance road is closed residents of Vineyard Valley would exit using the access onto Pope Street.

Regarding the standards which apply to the levee road as an evacuation route, the standard cited by the commenter (30-foot width with two-foot shoulders) is incorrectly cited. This standard is for emergency vehicle (e.g., fire apparatus) access. The levee road, which was designated as the official evacuation route for the Vineyard Valley mobilehome community, meets City standards for emergency evacuation.

It should be noted that the City of St Helena Fire Department has determined (as discussed in the June 27, 2023 staff report) that the emergency vehicle access to the levee road is no longer needed and has recommended that it be removed from the proposed tentative map. If the City Council concurs with this recommendation, the easement and permit issues cited by the commenter would become moot.

Comment #14
Commenter asserts that the “the contemplated additional emergency access point onto the levee” cannot be constructed given “required conservation easements and numerous permit issues related to the flood control project, including the Incidental Take Permit under the Endangered Species Act.”
Response #14
The proposed emergency access point to the levee road from the project site is shown in Figure 2-4a of the EIR. The levee road is a gravel road owned and maintained by the City of St.

Helena. No conservation easements or permits would be required to construct the connection, other than a City encroachment permit (an entitlement which is identified in the EIR project description).

There is no evidence that an incidental take permit would be necessary under either the State or Federal Endangered Species Act. The habitat type adjacent to the roadway is annual grassland (see Figure 3.4-1 and page 3.4-9 of the EIR). As discussed in the EIR (Section 3.4), there is low potential for special status species to occur on the project site. White-tailed kite and pallid bat may use trees in the project vicinity for roosting habitat. Preconstruction surveys and avoidance measures, as required by Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, would avoid any potential for incidental take to protected species.

Agenda Item #6.1.

-8-
It should be noted that the City of St Helena Fire Department has determined (as discussed in the June 27, 2023 staff report) that the emergency vehicle access to the levee road is no longer needed and has recommended that it be removed from the proposed tentative map. If the City Council concurs with this recommendation, the easement and permit issues cited by the commenter would become moot.

Comment #15
Comment opines that “any failure [of the existing levee] would result in ruinous liability to the City.”
Response #15
This is not a comment regarding the adequacy of the City’s compliance with CEQA.

However, as a point of information, and was already included in the agenda materials for the City’s May 1, 2023 hearing regarding the project, the City Attorney advised that:

The case [law] regarding liability stemming from flood control projects make clear that the City would not be liable for damages simply because a flood event occurred, or even simply based on the failure of the levee, were that to occur at some point in the future.

Any risk of liability would be based on and evaluation of the specific facts in event of future flooding, based on the factors described above. To limit its exposure to liability, and more importantly, to protect the community from future flooding, the City should conduct regular maintenance and inspections of the levee, and conduct repairs of the levee when deemed necessary or appropriate. This continuing inspection, maintenance and repair of the levee will help to demonstrate reasonable behavior on the part of the City. Further, the levee was designed and constructed in accordance with US Army Corps of Engineers standards to a 200 year flood standard.

There is no indication that the design or the construction of the levee was unreasonable. The City should continue to be diligent in its inspection and maintenance of the levee, as it should with all public infrastructure. However, the City is not subject to strict liability based on its ownership of the levee, and any future liability will be based on whether the City is reasonable, based on the multifactor test described in this memo.

Comment #16
Commenter asserts that the project “will substantially alter the current view from Adams Street/Library Lane, and remove or otherwise obstruct current vineyard and hillside views” and requests mitigation to restrict future residents from modifying or altering exterior lighting.

Agenda Item #6.1.

-9-
Response # 16
The project’s impacts on views and change in visual character of the project site is addressed in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR, Aesthetics/Visual Resources. The analysis in Section

3.1 reviews project compliance with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Design Review requirements and also provides visual simulations of the proposed project to illustrate how development of the project would change views of the project site. As noted in Chapter 2, project Description, if the project is approved the City would require additional subsequent discretionary approvals, including Design Review.

Based on the analysis in the Draft EIR, all Aesthetic impacts would be less than significant with the exception of an increase in lighting that would result in a significant impact.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, which requires lighting design guidelines be developed for the project to minimize glare and light spillover would reduce that impact to less than significant.

The Commenter’s opinion that the project would result in undesirable impacts, while not supported by substantial evidence, is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

Comment #17
Commenter objects to the EIR’s conclusion that the project will not result a significant impact to agricultural resources.

Response #18
Substantial evidence in Chapter 3.2 of the Draft EIR, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, confirms that the project will not result in a significant impact to agricultural resources.

Specifically the Draft EIR states:

The project site includes 5.8 acres of Prime Farmland and 0.6 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance (as defined by the FMMP) that would be converted to urban uses as a result of Proposed project implementation (see Table 3.2-1). The site also includes land designated as Farmland of Local Importance and Urban Land. Due to the presence of 6.4 acres of “Important Farmland,” the LESA Model (Appendix B) was used to evaluate the quality of agricultural lands on the project site to determine the significance of potential Proposed project impacts. As described above, under Methods of Analysis, the LESA Model is used to provide a quantitative and consistent approach to determining potentially significant impacts to agricultural resources during the environmental review process.

The model results in individual scores for the LE and SA factors, along with a total score out of 100 possible points.

The dominant soil type on the project site is Bale clay loam (see Section 3.6, Geology and Soils), which has a relatively high Land Agenda Item #6.1.

-10-
Capability Classification and average to above-average Storie Index. This resulted in a moderate LE score. The relatively small size of the project site and the amount of urban land near the site resulted in a low SA score, despite the relatively good availability of water (due to the on-site irrigation well). The model returned an LE score of 35 and a SA score of 13.8 for a total score of 48.8 (see Appendix B). As shown in Table 3.2-3, the loss of agricultural resources would be considered significant only if the individual LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points.

Therefore, impacts associated with the removal of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance would be less than significant.

Comment #19
The Commenter recommends adoption of Alternative 3, the Park/Open Space Alternative to avoid fill of wetlands.

Response #19
The Comment is noted and will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration.

Comment #20
Commenter objectsto the EIR’s conclusion that the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan and land use regulations.

Response #20
Substantial evidence in Chapter 3.10 of the Draft EIR, Land Use, confirms that the project will not result in a significant impact related to any inconsistency with the City’s applicable General Plan and land use regulations. Commenter’s opinion is not supported by substantial evidence.

Comment #21
Commenter asserts that the EIR lacks substantial evidence to support a finding, that the project, and particularly Lot 52, will not have a significant impact on noise.

Response #21
Substantial evidence in Chapter 3.11 of the Draft EIR, Noise and Vibration, confirms that the project, with the implementation of recommended mitigation, will not result in a significant impact related to noise. Commenter’s opinion is not supported by substantial evidence.

Comment #22
The Commenter asserts that the EIR should describe the project as impacting recreational facilities currently on the project site.

Agenda Item #6.1.

-11-
Response #22
As detailed in the EIR, the project site is privately-owned and is therefore not a public recreation area. Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.12, Public Services and Recreation, the proposed project applicant would pay required park fees to be used by the City to purchase land to construct new parks or upgrade existing recreation facilities. Commenter’s opinion is not supported by substantial evidence.

Comment #23
Commenter asserts that the City cannot consider the development of affordable housing on the site in adopting statements of overriding consideration because there is no currently proposed affordable housing agreement. Commenter further opines that the draft statement of overriding consideration does not identify benefits.

Response #23
As noted in the EIR and in the proposed conditions of approval for the Tentative Map, the proposed project will be required to comply with the City’s inclusionary housing regulations, and to obtain an approved Affordable Housing Agreement before the map can be recorded.

Accordingly, contrary to the Comment, the project will, in fact, include affordable housing as required by the St. Helena Municipal Code.

The City has determined that the project’s VMT impacts are not feasibly mitigatable and thus significant and unavoidable. CEQA provides that lead agencies must weigh a proposed project’s benefits against its unavoidable environmental risks and may find the adverse impacts “acceptable” if the benefits outweigh those effects. (Public Resources Code §21081(b); CEQA Guidelines §15093(a).) The City Council will undertake such a consideration, including consideration of the project’s required affordable housing, at its hearing on the EIR and project.

Agenda Item #6.1.

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST,

HELENA, CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2018032014) FOR THE HUNTER
SUBDIVISION PROJECT; ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING
A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.

WHEREAS, the proposed Hunter Subdivision Project, Tentative Map 2022-001 (“Project”) entails the subdivision of a 16.9 acre site (Assessor’s Parcel No. 009-030-057; hereinafter, the “Project site”) in the City of St. Helena (“City”) into 51 lots to accommodate single-family residences, a 3.4-acre parcel that would accommodate 25 attached residential units (which would be income restricted, with 5 units affordable to very low-income families, and 20 to moderate income families), a 0.06-acre parcel that would not be developed, and a 0.04-acre parcel for an existing agricultural well, which will supply water for all onsite landscaping and other outdoor uses; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project would result in the development of 87 residential units—51 single-family residences, accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) on 11 of the single family lots, and 25 attached residential units—resulting in an average density of 5.1 dwelling units per acre; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project further includes grading of the Project site, construction of the extensions of Starr Avenue and Adams Street, construction of local residential streets, and installation of utility lines; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project requires discretionary approvals from the City, including a Tentative Subdivision Map Approval (insert TSM No. 2022-001) and future discretionary approvals including an Affordable Housing Agreement, design review, and a conditional use permit, all of which must be obtained before development of the proposed Project may proceed;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000, et seq.) (“CEQA”) and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000, et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Draft EIR that provided for a comment period of over 30 days, from March 6, 2018 to April 9, 2018, and the NOP Agenda Item #6.1.

was sent to each responsible agency, trustee agency, the Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”), and interested parties, including members of the public who had requested such notice; and WHEREAS, the City held a public scoping meeting on March 12, 2018 to further solicit comments on the scope of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated a 45-day public review and comment period for the Draft EIR, issuing a Notice of Availability and releasing the Draft EIR for public review and comment from September 23, 2021 through November 8, 2021; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others during the 45-day public review and comment period; and WHEREAS, the City received a total of 122 letters during the 45-day public review and comment period, including 2 letters from interest group organizations, and 120 letters from individual members of the public; and
WHEREAS, the City held two public meetings, on November 2, 2021, and November 30, 2021, to further solicit public comments on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final EIR, consisting of the comments received during the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR. For the purposes of this Resolution, the “EIR” shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR, together with the other sections of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project identified, discussed and sufficiently analyzed significant effects which may occur as a result of the Project, feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing any of these effects in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on February 7, 2023, held a public hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council on the certification of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC2023-001, recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Draft EIR, the Final EIR; and
Agenda Item #6.1.

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered as well as the City Council’s draft CEQA findings, draft Statement of Overriding Consideration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) attached hereto as Exhibit B, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ST. HELENA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

SECTION 5. The documents and materials that constitute the records of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at the City of St. Helena City Hall at 1572 Railroad Ave. St. Helena, CA. The custodian for these records is the City of St. Helena City Clerk.

This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

SECTION 6. City staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.

Agenda Item #6.1.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the City of St. Helena City Council approved the foregoing at a Special Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on June 26, 2023, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Hall: _____
Councilmember Chouteau: _____
Councilmember Hardy: _____
Councilmember Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
ADOPTED AND APPROVED the 26th day of June, 2023.

Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT A: DRAFT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS
Agenda Item #6.1.

1 SECTION 1. FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT

REQUIRING MITIGATION
Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21002.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15128, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty that there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, the City Council hereby finds that the Project would have either no impact or a less-than-significant impact to the following resource areas:

A. AESTHETICS

1. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-24 through 3.1-26.) Explanation: The City’s 1993 General Plan and the City’s recently adopted 2019 General Plan do not designate any specific scenic resources or vistas within the City for protection, and so the Project will not have a substantially adverse effect on any designated scenic vista. Moreover, the Project has been designed to protect views of the surrounding hillsides and open space areas through the orientation of Starr Avenue and Adams Street, and the Project site itself does not include highly valued landscape and is not considered a scenic vista. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-24 through 3.1-26.)

2. Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-24.)
Explanation: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway because there is no state highway that would be impacted by the Project. The Project site is located approximately 0.2 miles from SR 29, an eligible state scenic highway, but the Project site is not visible from the highway due to intervening trees, buildings, and structures.

The Project site does not contain any scenic resources such as rock outcroppings, does not contain any other significant natural or historical features that are visible from a state scenic highway, and, accordingly, would not limit view of such features from SR 29 or any other state scenic highway.

For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-24.) Agenda Item #6.1.

2 3. Existing Visual Character of the Site and Surrounding Area Threshold: Would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-26 through 3.1-34.) Explanation: The Project will comply with the City’s Design Review Ordinance and undergo design review to ensure that the Project is visually consistent and compatible with the applicable General Plan, with adjacent buildings, and with the existing environment. Additionally, the Project will comply with the site’s zoning requirements, including requirements relating to building height and mass. For these reasons and the reason set forth in the Draft EIR, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-26 through 3.1-27.)
Additionally, the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Views of the site are limited and primarily available from private property (i.e., backyards), at the terminus of Starr Avenue and Adams Street, along Del Rio Court (a private street) within the immediate vicinity of the site, and from a gravel maintenance road bordering the north/northwest boundary of the site used by the public as a walking trial. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-27.) Visual simulations in the Draft EIR illustrate the fact that the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-29, 3.1-21.) For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project will have a less-than-significant effect relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-26 through 3.1-34.) B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Finding: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.2-12.) Explanation: While the Project site does include 5.8 acres of Prime Farmland and 0.6 acres of Farmland of Statewide importance that would be converted to urban uses as a result of the Project, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. The California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (“LESA”) model—a model designed to ensure a quantitative and consistent approach to determining potentially significant impacts to agricultural resources— was used to assess the Project’s impact on agricultural lands. Based on the LESA assessment which evaluated the soil resource quality, project size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands the quality of agricultural lands on the Agenda Item #6.1.

3 Project site were found to be low quality and did not meet the standard to be considered significant agricultural resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-9-3.2-10.)As set forth in the EIR, the Project’s impacts associated with the removal of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.2-12.)

2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or with a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-11.) Explanation: The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and does not include any land zoned for agricultural use. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-6, 3.2-11.) There are agriculturally zoned lands to the north and northwest of the Project site. The Project would not directly or indirectly affect lands to the north and northwest such that continued agricultural use would be impaired. .

Notably, the development of residences on the Project site would not directly or indirectly result in conversion of the agricultural land to the north and northwest of the Project site to nonagricultural uses. The City’s Municipal Code (Chapters 17.32 through 17.60 and 17.68) includes provisions that require property owners adjacent to agricultural operations to recognize that adjacent properties have the right to farm and that there is a good faith expectation that the adjacent neighbors will not complain to the City regarding legal normal agricultural activities, including day or night disbursement of chemicals, and creation of dust, noise, or fumes. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-11 through 3.2-13.)

3. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-6, 3.2-11.)
Explanation: The Project site does not contain any forest or timberland and is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-6, 3.2-11.)

4. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-6, 3.2-11.)
Agenda Item #6.1.

4 Explanation: The Project site does not contain forest land and is not designated as forest land. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-6, 3.2-11.)

5. Indirect Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-12 through 3.2-13.) Explanation: While there is agricultural land to the north and northwest of the Project site that is currently in active agricultural production, the Project would result in physical changes to the environment that would . directly or indirectly result in a conversion of this farmland to nonagricultural use. In addition, the City’s Municipal Code includes provisions that require property owners adjacent to agricultural operations to recognize that adjacent properties have the right to form and that there is a good faith expectation that the adjacent neighbors will not complain to the City regarding legal normal agricultural activities, including day or night disbursement of chemicals, and creation of dust, noise, or fumes. As noted above, the Project would not convert forest land to non-forest use, as there is no forest land on the Project site. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have no impact to farmland or forest land. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-12 through 3.2-13.)
C. AIR QUALITY

1. Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-28 through 3.3-31.) Explanation: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) has set forth a three-step methodology for determining a project’s consistency with the applicable air quality plan. The EIR engaged in this three-step process and concluded based on substantial evidence that the Project would support the goals of the applicable air quality plan (the 2017 Clean Air Plan), that the Project complies with applicable control measures from the applicable air quality plan, and that the Project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the applicable air quality plan. As part of this analysis, the EIR demonstrated the Project would result in less than significant construction and operational emissions and would not result in long-term adverse air quality impacts. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and would thus have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-28 through 3.3-

31.)
Agenda Item #6.1.

5 2. Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-31 through 3.3-36.) Explanation: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (“SFBAAB”), is in non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards.

BAAQMD has developed thresholds of significance to determine whether a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The EIR estimated the Project’s emissions relating to both construction and operation using the CalEEMod model and concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant (including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5) for which the SFBAAB is in nonattainment. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a lessthan-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-31 through 3.3-36.)

3. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-36 through 3.3-37.) Explanation: The Project would not generate substantial criteria air pollutant emissions or associated pollutant concentrations, as construction and operation of the Project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Moreover, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of Toxic Air Contaminants (“TACs”), as the Project’s TAC emissions during both construction and operation of the Project would be well below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. The Project additionally would not expose sensitive receptors to significant carbon monoxide concentrations, as the Project’s carbon monoxide emissions would be less than significant. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the Project thus have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3- 31 through 3.3-37.)

4. Objectionable Odors
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.3-28.) Agenda Item #6.1.

6 Explanation: The Project does not include a land use associated with the generation of odors that could affect a substantial number of people and would not generate such odor impacts.

For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.3-28.) D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-43.) Explanation: There are no riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities within the Project site that were identified in local, regional, or federal plans, policies, or regulations. For this reason and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-43.)

2. Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-43.) Explanation: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. For example, the Project would not require removal of any trees, and no permit relating to this issue is therefore required. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, there would be a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-43.)

3. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?
Findings: No Impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-43.)
Explanation: The Project site is not located within the boundary of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-43.)
Agenda Item #6.1.

7 E. ENERGY RESOURCES

1. Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption
Threshold: Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-14 through 3.5-16.) Explanation: The Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operational activities. The EIR analyzed the Project’s potential consumption of various energy resources, including electricity, natural gas, and petroleum during both the Project’s construction and operation phases, and it concluded based on substantial evidence that the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-14 through 3.5-16.)

2. Conflict with Energy Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.15-19 through 3.15-20.) Explanation: The Project is required to meet Title 24 and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) standards to reduce energy demand and increase energy efficiency, and the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.15-19 through 3.15-20.) F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Rupture of an Earthquake Fault
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death, involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-20.)
Explanation: The Project site is not located within a fault rupture hazard zone. Because the Project site is not crossed by any known active or potentially active fault, the Project would Agenda Item #6.1.

8 not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-20.)

2. Landslides
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death, involving landslides? Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-20.)
Explanation: The Project site is not located in an area subject to landslides. The Project site is located on relatively flat ground and is not adjacent to any areas with steep slopes or hillsides that could result in a landslide. The Project would therefore not cause potential substantial adverse effects relating to landslides, and the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-20.)

3. Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-20 through 3.6-21.) Explanation: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

A potentially significant impact relating to soil erosion or loss of topsoil could occur if the Project would result in soil erosion sufficient to undermine structures or compromise slope stability—e.g., if the Project would result in rills (small narrow channels) and gullies, whereby storm runoff produces deep incisions into the soils and slopes. The Project, however, would not result in such soil erosion because the Project site is on relatively flat land. Moreover, runoff resulting from the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of top soil, as runoff would be managed and discharged into an existing detention basin. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp.

3.6-20 through 3.6-21.)

4. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-21.)
Explanation: The Project would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; rather, the Project would connect to the City’s sewer system to convey wastewater to a treatment plant. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p.

3.6-21.)
Agenda Item #6.1.

9 5. Geologic Features
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique geologic feature? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-21.) Explanation: The Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique geologic feature. The Project site does not contain any unique geologic features, such as a landform or rock outcrop of scientific, cultural, or aesthetic interest. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue and not mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-21.)
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions (“GHGs”), either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.7-30 through 3.7-31.) Explanation: The Project would not generate GHGs, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment. The EIR analyzed the amount of GHGs that would be generated by the Project during both its construction and operation phases, and it concluded based on substantial evidence that the amount of GHGs generated by the Project would be below BAAQMD’s GHG threshold of significance. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp.

3.7-30 through 3.7-31.)

2. Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.7-31 through 3.7-38.) Explanation: The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose or reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The City has not adopted an applicable GHG reduction plan. As set forth in the EIR, the Project would be consistent with the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Plan Bay Area, the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) Scoping Plan, and other goals and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.7-31 through 3.7-38.) For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.7-31 through 3.7-38.)
Agenda Item #6.1.

10 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-15 through 3.8-16.) Explanation: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during its construction or operation.

During construction of the Project, no acutely hazardous materials would be used, and while some hazardous materials (such as fuels, motor oil, and lubricants) would be used in small amounts, the materials would not pose a significant risk to off-site residents or construction workers because they would be used and stored in accordance with existing laws and regulations.

Moreover, development of the Project would be subject to existing regulatory requirements for hazardous materials, including requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit through the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”). The SWPPP would require implementation of control measures for hazardous material storage, soil stockpiles, inspections, maintenance, training of employees, and containment of releases to prevent contaminated runoff into nearby stormwater collection systems or waterways. Included within the SWPPP, best management practices would be required to contain hazardous materials and minimize the contact of hazardous materials with stormwater. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-15.)
During operation of the Project, residents would be expected to use and store typical household hazards such as house paint, cleaning products, herbicides, and pesticides. The amounts of hazardous materials that residents store or use is negligible and not considered sufficient to create a significant safety hazard to the public, or otherwise pose a significant risk to human health or the environment. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-16.)
For these reasons and the reasons set forth in EIR, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, and impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-15 through 3.8-16.)

2. Acutely Hazardous Materials within ¼ Mile of an Existing or Proposed School
Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Agenda Item #6.1.

11 Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-14.) Explanation: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-14.)

3. Hazardous Materials Sites
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-14.) Explanation: The Project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of known hazardous materials sites, as confirmed in the EIR and in a Phase I ESA prepared for the Project.

For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-14.)

4. Public Airports and Private Airstrips
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-15.)
Explanation: The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, there would be no impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-15.)

5. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-20 through 3.8-21.) Explanation: Neither the construction nor the operation of the Project would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. During construction, the Project will implement the SWPPP, which would include an Integrated Contingency Plan and an evacuation plan for construction workers in the event of an emergency. Compliance with the SWPPP and the Integrated Contingency Plan would ensure impacts are less than significant during construction. The Project would similarly have a less-than-significant impact during its operation phase, as the City’s Fire Department will review Agenda Item #6.1.

12 the site plans to ensure adequacy of emergency access. Streets and roads will be adequate in terms of width, turning radius, and grade to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and the Project will have alternative emergency ingress and egress. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-20 through 3.8-21.)

6. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-21 through 3.8-22.) Explanation: Neither construction nor operation of the Project would expose people to adverse impacts involving wildland fire. CalFire does not identify the Project site as being within an area susceptible to wildland fires. During construction of the Project, the Project will comply with best management practices included within the SWPPP to further ensure that the Project would not result in wildfires. Operation of the Project would not have adverse impacts relating to wildland fires, as the Project will be built in compliance with the California Building Code’s requirements for fire protection. Moreover, and as discussed above, the Project is designed with an emergency vehicle access to facilitate the ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles, including the City and Napa County Fire Department’s apparatus, and the Project is designed to further provide emergency evacuation access for residents. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would not result in a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-21 through 3.8-22.)
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. Compliance with Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-34 through 3.9-39.) Explanation: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and it would not otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

Construction of the Project would not result in any potentially significant impact relating to this issue because the Project would comply with the Construction General Permit, and the City’s Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance would require implementation of a SWPPP to address potential construction-related impacts on water quality. The standard requirements contained in a SWPPP are sufficient to address a project’s potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Operation of the Project would likewise not result in any potentially significant impact relating to this issue as the Project would comply with the standards and performance criteria contained in the Small MS4 Permit, which requires Agenda Item #6.1.

13 development projects to adhere to site design measures, source control measures, treatment control measures, and certain operation and maintenance requirements that ensure a less-than-significant impact. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-34 through 3.9-39.)

2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-40 through 3.9-43.) Explanation: The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basis. The County works with local jurisdictions, including the City, to sustainably manage the Napa Valley Groundwater Subbasin in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”). In its most recent assessment of conditions, the County, through its technical consultant, has determined that the Subbasin is not exhibiting significant impacts with regard to the applicable sustainability indicators defined by SGMA, including lowering of groundwater levels, depletion of groundwater in storage, degradation of groundwater quality, and depletion of interconnected surface waters. The EIR additionally includes an analysis of the Project’s demand on groundwater resources, including the Project’s use of the on-site well, and the EIR concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-40 through 3.9-43.)

3. Existing Drainage Patterns and Runoff
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-44 through 3.9-45.) Explanation: The Project would not alter the course of a stream or river and is not located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (“SFHA”) of the Napa River, and accordingly, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Moreover, the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site as the off-site City detention basin has been designed with adequate capacity to capture and treat increases in the rate and volume of stormwater runoff associated with development in this area of the City, including development of the Project site with impervious surfaces. Additionally, the Project would be subject to the most recent standards and performance Agenda Item #6.1.

14 criteria contained in the Small MS4 Permit and a Stormwater Control Plan that complies with the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Post Construction Manual. The Project’s compliance with existing permitting requirements and standard conditions of approval (i.e., MS4 Permit and the City’s Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance) are sufficient to avoid water quality degradation, including erosion and siltation. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-44 through 3.9-45.)

4. Surface Runoff and Flooding
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-45.) Explanation: The Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. The City-owned off-site detention basin has been designed to store the increase in storm water runoff generated from the Project site during a 100-year storm event. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-45.)

5. Stormwater Drainage System Capacity and Polluted Runoff Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-45 through 3.9-46.) Explanation: The Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The Project would comply with the City’s Municipal Code, which requires the Project to construct storm drains or improve existing storms drains to ensure adequate capacity is available to carry runoff produced by a 10-year storm event. The Project’s utility plan confirms that on-site storm flows at the Project site would be conveyed to the off-site detention center via storm drain lines. Moreover, the existing off-site detention basin was designed to accommodate runoff from the Project site. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project’s impact relating to this issue would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-45 through 3.9-46.)
Agenda Item #6.1.

15 6. Flood Flows
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-44.) Explanation: The Project would not alter the course of a stream or river and is not located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (“SFHA”) of the Napa River, and accordingly, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-13.) Natural Hazards
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-34.)
Explanation: The Project site is not within a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, and the Project and does not contain the preconditions necessary for a project to be at risk of hazards due to a tsunami, or seiche which require a reasonable distance and elevation relative to a coastline (for sea level rise or seiche) or large body of water (for seiche waves). There be no impact (or risk) associated with a tsunami or seiche. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, there would be no impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-13.)

7. Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-46.) Explanation: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The County works with local jurisdictions, including the City, to sustainably manage the Napa Valley Groundwater Subbasin in compliance with SGMA. In its most recent assessment of conditions, the County, through its technical consultant, determined that the Subbasin is not exhibiting significant impacts with regard to the applicable sustainability indicators defined by SGMA, including lowering of groundwater levels, depletion of groundwater in storage, degradation of groundwater quality, and depletion of interconnected surface waters. Moreover, the Project would comply with applicable regulations and permits designed to comply with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Agenda Item #6.1.

16 Region. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a lessthan-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-46.) J. LAND USE AND PLANNING

1. Divide an Established Community
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.10-14.)
Explanation: Due to the Project’s location, development of the Project would not physically divide an established community because there is no development northwest or northeast of the site. The Project would, instead, provide a continuation of the existing neighborhood with development of a new residential area. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have no impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.10-14.)

2. Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations
Threshold: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.10-14 through 3.10-19.) Explanation: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the applicable General Plan or any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The EIR analyzed the Project’s consistency with the City’s 1993 General Plan, 2019 General Plan, Housing Element Update, and Zoning Ordinance, as well as the Project’s consistency with the Plan Bay Area 2040. The EIR concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any of the foregoing. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.10-14 through 3.10-19.)
K. MINERAL RESOURCES

1. Statewide Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? Findings: No impact.

Explanation: The Project site is not located within an area known to be underlain by regionally important mineral resources. The California Geological Survey identifies the Project site as MRZ-4, indicating that insufficient information exists to assign the site with any other mineral resource zone Agenda Item #6.1.

17 designation. No mineral resources have been identified in or around the Project site, and none of the previous use of the Project site included mining activities or mineral processing. For these reasons, this issue was dismissed from further discussion during the EIR scoping period (see Notice of Preparation issued March 6, 2018). No comments were received by the City regarding mineral resources during scoping or review of the Draft EIR. The Project would no impact relating to mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.

2. Locally Important Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Findings: No impact.

Explanation: The Project site is not located within an area known to be underlain by locally-important mineral resources. The California Geological Survey identifies the Project site as MRZ-4, indicating that insufficient information exists to assign the site with any other mineral resource zone designation. No mineral resources have been identified in or around the Project site, and none of the previous use of the Project site included mining activities or mineral processing.

The City’s General Plan does not identify the Project site as containing locally important mineral resources. For these reasons, this issue was dismissed from further discussion during the EIR scoping period (see Notice of Preparation issued March 6, 2018). No comments were received by the City regarding mineral resources during scoping or review of the Draft EIR. The Project would have no impact relating to mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.

L. NOISE

1. Groundborne Vibration
Threshold: Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.11-17 through 3.11-18.) Explanation: The Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The EIR analyzed the vibration that would be generated by the use of heavy equipment necessary for the construction of the Project, and it determined, based on substantial evidence, that vibration generated by the Project would be below the relevant threshold of significance set forth by Federal Transit Administration. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.11-17 through 3.11-18.)
Agenda Item #6.1.

18 2. Private/Public Airports
Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.11-14.)
Explanation: The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, and it is not located within two miles of a public airport. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have no impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.11-14.)
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. Induce Substantial Growth
Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-3 through 4.6.) Explanation: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. While the Project does entail residential development and would result in population growth, the population growth is not unplanned. The Project site was designated for future residential development in the City’s 1993 General Plan and 2019 General Plan, and the Project site is located within the City’s Urban Limit Line with access to existing utilities. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-3 through 4.6.)

2. Displacing Housing and People
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Findings: No impact.

Explanation: The Project does not entail the demolition of any housing, and would not otherwise displace any residents. (Draft EIR, p. 2-2.) For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not have no impact relating to this issue.

Agenda Item #6.1.

19 N. PUBLIC SERVICES

1. Fire Protection Services
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-13 through 3.12-14.) Explanation: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, relating to fire protection services. The Project site would be served by the City’s fire department located at 1480 Main Street, approximately 0.2 miles from the Project site. Moreover, the increase in population generated by the Project is within the projected population growth in the City’s 1993 and 2019 General Plans and would not generate an increase in population that would necessitate the construction of a new facility or expansion of an existing facility. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-13 through 3.12-14.)

2. Police Services
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-14 through 3.12-15.) Explanation: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, relating to police protection services. The Project would be served by the City’s police station, approximately 0.2 miles from the Project site.

While the City would likely hire an additional police officer to serve the approximately 213 residents the Project would add to the City, the addition of one police officer would not require the construction of new, or the expansion of existing, police facilities because adequate space is available at the existing St. Helena Police Department Facility. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-14 through 3.12-15.)
Agenda Item #6.1.

20 3. Education
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.12-15.) Explanation: No school would need to be constructed or physically altered in order to accommodate the approximately 28 students that would be generated by the Project. As set forth in the EIR, the local primary school, elementary school, middle school, and high school all have sufficient capacity to accommodate the students generated by the Project. In addition, the Project will pay all required school impact fees consistent with Government Code Sections 65995–65998.

For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.12-15.)

4. Parks
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-16 through 3.12-17.) Explanation: Parks within the vicinity of the Project include Lyman Park, Jacob Meily Park, and Lewis Station, all of which are located within approximately 0.3 miles of the Project site. These parks have adequate facilities to accommodate the Project’s estimated 213 residents, with such facilities including picnic and turf areas, children’s playgrounds, and a walking trail.

Moreover, park and recreational impact fees are imposed on all residential development within the City, and the Project applicant must pay all required park fees, which the City will use to ensure that the increased use of existing parks due to the Project’s anticipated residents would not cause result in substantial physical deterioration of the park facilities. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-16 through 3.12-17.)

5. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant Agenda Item #6.1.

21 environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.12-16.) Explanation: While the 213 residents generated by the Project would increase demand for existing public facilities within the City (including the George and Elsie Wood Public Library and City Hall), Chapter 3.32 of the City’s Municipal Code requires payment of a civic improvement fee that would offset any impacts the Project might have. The civic improvement fee was calculated to ensure new development would pay its proportionate share of the cost of existing and future capital assets required to serve the City. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p.

3.12-16.)
O. RECREATION

1. Existing Facilities
Threshold: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-16 through 3.12-17.) Explanation: Parks within the vicinity of the Project include Lyman Park, Jacob Meily Park, and Lewis Station, all of which are located within approximately 0.3 miles of the Project site. These parks have adequate facilities to accommodate the Project’s estimated 213 residents, with such facilities including picnic and turf areas, children’s playgrounds, and a walking trail.

Moreover, park and recreational impact fees are imposed on all residential development within the City, and the Project applicant must pay all required park fees, which the City will use to ensure that the increased use of existing parks due to the Project’s anticipated residents would not cause result in substantial physical deterioration of the park facilities. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-16 through 3.12-17.)

2. New Recreational Facilities
Threshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-16 through 3.12-17.) Explanation: The Project does not propose to construct any new on- or off-site recreation facilities, and the Project would not expand any existing off-site recreational facilities. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have no impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-16 through 3.12-17.) Agenda Item #6.1.

22 P. TRANSPORTATION

1. Consistency with Circulation Performance Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-39 through 3.14-40.) Explanation: The Project would be consistent with applicable plans, city ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Notably, the Project would provide adequate sidewalks and bicycle amenities and would not conflict with any plans or policies supporting either the development of these facilities or the use of these facilities. The Project would not conflict with any plans or policies that address transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-39 through

3.14-40.)

2. Transportation Hazards
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-46 through 3.14-51.) Explanation: The Project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use that would contribute to an increase in collisions or create visual obstructions that would impede vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians from having safe access to and from the Project site.

The Project would result in the extension and construction of roads, but these roads would be designed to accommodate emergency service vehicles and maintain accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists according to City street design standards. For example, the Project would extend Starr Avenue northward into the Project site, and intersect with Adams Street, which the Project would also extend eastward from its current terminus. As Starr Avenue is extended northward, it would narrow from an approximately 75-foot right-of-way (ROW) to a 60-foot ROW with 4-footside sidewalks and a 6-foot-wide planter strip on both sides of the street, consistent with City’s street standards. This extension, along with Adams Street, would be designed to accommodate emergency service vehicles and maintain accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists according to City street design standards. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-46 through 3.14-47.) The Project would also result in internal public residential streets within the Project site to accommodate neighborhood circulation and provide on-street parking on both sides of the Starr Avenue and Adams Street extensions (where permitted). These roadways would be designed to be consistent with all applicable City street design criteria and conform to the City’s Municipal Code Agenda Item #6.1.

23 (Section 16.32.060) to ensure that emergency service vehicles can adequately access and circulate within the Project site. As explained in the EIR, there are no visual obstructions that would impede vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians from having safe access to and from the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 3.14-47.)
The EIR additionally considered accident data and a collision analysis to determine whether the Project would increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use.

The analysis, based on substantial evidence, demonstrates that the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-47 through 3.14-48.) The EIR further analyzed the Project’s potential to increase hazards during Project construction, and the EIR concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the Project would have a less-than-significant impact. Notably, while certain construction activities could require temporary lane closures, the Project would first be required to obtain construction permits through the City, and the City’s traffic engineer would first prepare a temporary traffic control plan for the construction activities. As a result, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses during construction of the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-49 through 3.14-50.) For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-46 through 3.14-51.)

3. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.15-51.) Explanation: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The St. Helena Fire Department has reviewed the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, and it did not identify any issues with inadequate emergency access. Notably, the Project includes two primary access points, Star Avenue and Adams Street, as well as a separate emergency vehicle access. In the event of an emergency, there would be three avenues that would enable vehicles to enter or exit the Project site. Moreover, the Project would be consistent with 1993 General Plan Policy 8.5.7 and 2019 General Plan Policy PS4.6, which require all streets and roads be designed with adequate width, turning radius, and grade to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and to provide alternative emergency ingress and egress. Additionally, once the Tentative Subdivision Map is approved, the Project’s Final Subdivision Map would be subject to additional review by the St.

Helena Fire Department to confirm that the Project provides proper emergency access. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.15-51.)
Agenda Item #6.1.

24 Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Utilities Infrastructure
Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-27 through 3.13-30.) Explanation: While the Project would require new water, sewer, storm drain, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure on site to serve the proposed residential development (e.g., on-site water, sewer, and storm drain lines and utility connections), the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. As explained in the EIR, the City’s water and wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities and the City’s stormwater drainage facilities have the capacity to accommodate the demands of the Project, and the Project would not require the construction of new such facilities or expansion of the existing facilities. Additionally, the City collects development impact fees on new development to pay for public improvements relating to water projects, sewer projects, and stormwater drainage projects. The Project applicant would pay these fees, which would help offset any increased demands on the City’s water, sewer, and stormwater drainage systems. The Project will be served by Marin Clean Energy for electricity service, by Pacific Gas & Electric Company for natural gas service, and by various service providers for telecommunications services. The Project would not require the relocation or construction of electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would result in a lessthan-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-27 through 3.13-30.)

2. Sufficient Water Supplies
Threshold: Would sufficient water supplies be available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-31 through 3.13-32.) Explanation: Sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The longterm safe yield of the City’s water supply is 1,950 acre-feet per year, which consists of 600 acrefeet from the City of Napa contract, 900 acre-feet from Bell Canyon reservoir, and an average use of 450 acre-feet from groundwater. Recent water usage in the City is well below the 1,950 acrefeet target, with water usage ranging from 1,882 acre-feet (2013) to 1,465 acre-feet (2016) and averaging 1,637 acre-feet over the last eight years. Even if one were to add the Project’s entire water demand of 37.04 acre-feet per year to the highest water demand in recent years of 1,882 Agenda Item #6.1.

25 acre-feet, this would result in a City-wide water demand of 1,919 acre-feet, which is below the Safe Yield of 1,950 acre-feet.

In addition, the Project will comply with the City’s water neutrality policy, meaning that the 37.04 acre-feet per year of water that would be used during Project operation would be completely offset through a combination of using the on-site water well for irrigation needs and implementation of water conserving measures. Notably, the existing on-site agricultural well is proposed to be used to provide non-potable supplies to the separately plumbed landscape irrigation systems throughout the Project site to irrigate public and private landscaping. The on-site well has sufficient capacity to meet the Project’s estimated landscape water demand of 17.16 acre-feet per year. Moreover, to comply with the City’s water neutrality policy, the Project applicant is required to off-set the Project’s water demand as a condition of approval. To comply with Municipal Code section 13.12.030, the Project applicant shall identify and implement offsite improvements that reduce water loss from the public water distribution system and/or identify and implement offsite improvements that result in a net increase in potable water availability equivalent to 19.8 AFY, or a combination of these.

For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would result in a lessthan-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-31 through 3.13-32.)

3. Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-32 through 3.13-33.) Explanation: The City’s Waste Water Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s existing demand in addition to the WTTP’s existing commitments. The WWTP is permitted, and has capacity, to discharge up to 0.5 MGD during dry weather and up to

2.8 MGD during wet weather of treated effluent. The Project is expected to generate an average of

0.018 MGD of wastewater. As the WWTP currently treats an average flow of 0.384 MGD, the additional 0.018 MGD combined with the current average flow of 0.384 MGD would not exceed the plant’s permissible allowable average dry weather flow effluent of 0.5 MGD. Because adequate capacity is available at the WWTP to serve the Project, and for the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13- 32 through 3.13-33.)

4. Landfill Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Agenda Item #6.1.

26 Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-33 through 3.13-34.) Explanation: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, and it would not otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. During construction, the Project would contribute less than 0.1% of the Clover Flat Landfill’s permitted capacity per day. As this is a relatively minimal contribution, the Clover Flat Landfill would have adequate landfill capacity for the Project’s construction debris. During operation, the Project would contribute approximately 0.04 percent of the average unused daily capacity of the Clover Flat Landfill, and the Project would therefore not exceed the capacity of the landfill. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp.

3.13-33 through 3.13-34.)

5. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-33 through 3.13-34.) Explanation: The Project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Notably, the 2016 CALGreen Tier 1 mandatory measures require preparation of a Construction Waste Management Plan that documents the diversion of materials as required by CALGreen and at least 65% of nonhazardous construction waste would be required to be recycled or salvaged. The Project would comply with these mandatory measures. Additionally, the Project would comply with the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element solid waste diversion requirement and the AB 939 solid waste diversion requirements. The Clover Flat Landfill provides mandated commercial recycling processing services, production of organic feedstocks for composting, and renewable energy generation. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable local and state solid waste diversion, minimization, and recycling regulations. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-33 through 3.13-34.)
R. WILDFIRES

1. Impairment of Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.) Agenda Item #6.1.

27 Explanation: The Project is not located on a site designated as a very high fire hazard severity zone (“VHFHSZ”) by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“CalFire”) and would therefore have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue.

Regardless, as noted above and discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8- 20 through 3.8-21.) For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.)

2. Exacerbation of Wildfire Risks
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.) Explanation: The Project is not located on a site designated as VHFHSZ by CalFire and would therefore have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. Regardless, the Project site is flat, so the Project would not expose Project occupants to fire hazards due to proximity to hilly terrain or landslides due to post-fire conditions. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.)

3. Infrastructure-Related Wildfire Risks
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project require installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-13 through 4.16-14.) Explanation: The Project is not located on a site designated as VHFHSZ by CalFire and would therefore have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. Moreover, the Project does not require installation of infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.)

4. Landslides and Slope Instability
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, Agenda Item #6.1.

28 including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.) Explanation: The Project is not located on a site designated as VHFHSZ by CalFire and would therefore have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. Regardless, the Project site is flat, so the Project would not expose Project occupants to fire hazards due to proximity to hilly terrain or landslides due to post-fire conditions. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.)
SECTION 2. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED

TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR and this Resolution that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. The potentially significant impacts, and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less-than-significant level, are as follows:

A. AESTHETICS

1. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-41.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: The Project would not create a new source of glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and the Project’s impacts relating to glare would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-34.)
The Project would introduce new light sources into an area that is currently undeveloped, and this could potentially impact nighttime views absent mitigation. To ensure that any aesthetic light-related impact of the Project is mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure has been identified:

AES-1: To minimize spillover light while ensuring adequate nighttime security, the Project applicant shall prepare lighting design guidelines for the Project to be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the Design Review process. The lighting design guidelines shall include a lighting plan noting fixtures and lumens, and standards such as, lighting Agenda Item #6.1.

29 is to be shielded and downward focused to reduce glare and spillover light, up cast decorative lighting shall be limited to minimize effects on wildlife and to retain the rural ambience of the area, and the use of mirrored glass shall not be permitted. The lighting guidelines shall conform with Lighting Zone 2 of Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. The guidelines and lighting plan shall be approved as part of the Design Review application.

Implementation of MM AES-1 would ensure that light introduced to the Project site would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area by minimizing spillover light and limiting up cast light. With implementation of MM AES-1, the Project’s potential direct and cumulative impacts relating to new lights introduced to the Project site would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-41.)
B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Special Status Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-43 through 3.4-49.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: No federal or state-listed wildlife species have the potential to occur on the Project site. Only a small number of special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur onsite—native bats, the white-tailed kite, and nesting and migratory birds. There is low potential for these species to occur on the Project site. Nevertheless, absent mitigation, the Project could have a potentially substantially adverse effect on these species.

Native bats. The Project is not anticipated to result in any direct impacts to roosting bats.

Roosting habitat, such as rock outcrops, trees, caves, and human-made structures, are absent from the Project site. Additionally, the pallid bat is unlikely to roost on or near the Project site due to frequent human disturbance. Moreover, the Project would avoid potential roost sites within the vicinity of the Project site, such as the trees along the southeastern margin of the site.

Absent mitigation, the Project could potentially have indirect impacts on native bats. If bats were to roost in the area during construction, they could be indirectly impacted by construction-related noise. Indirect impacts to roosting bats could also result from increased light, glare, and activity associated with operation of the Project. To ensure that any potential impacts Agenda Item #6.1.